Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on April 06, 2006, 03:18:44 am
-
Artic fossil shows transitional form of fish moving from sea to land, including the formative armbones.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm
[q]Fossil animals found in Arctic Canada provide a snapshot of fish evolving into land animals, scientists say.
The finds are giving researchers a fascinating insight into this key stage in the evolution of life on Earth.
US palaeontologists have published details of the fossil "missing links" in the prestigious journal Nature.
The 383 million-year-old specimens are described as crocodile-like animals with fins instead of limbs that probably lived in shallow water.[/q]
-
It'll never be enough for the people who don't believe.
-
The fraking Vorlons could land tomorrow, show a home video of the past 500 million years and the fundies would scream about how it's all a lie and that they're servants of the devil.
If we're lucky, after that and learning about Scientology they'll deploy their planet killer and put us all out of our misery.
-
oh, there is a transitional for between fish and amphibians, but there isn't a transition between fish and the this, and not one between fish and that, and not every single organism ever to have lived is not recorded into the fosil record
-
Exactly, if mankind were to die out today, there'd be very little evidence left in 10 million years, possibly some satellites that haven't fallen out of orbit, in 65 millions upwards, who can say?
-
Exactly, if mankind were to die out today, there'd be very little evidence left in 10 million years, possibly some satellites that haven't fallen out of orbit, in 65 millions upwards, who can say?
I think, offhand, if you took every human being who lives in the world today, you'd statistically expect to have about 2 skeletons worth of bones preserved as fossils. Fortunately we have enough of a fossil record, though, to prove that the mechanics for the fine-grained steps can happen (for example, there is a very good fossil record for equines, and macroevolution can also be shown by fruit fly breed), and the importance of this is in giving further proof towards the hypothesised steps of evolving into land dwellers from fish, i.e. it evidences that this transition occured. Whereas the (creationist) alternative is that amphibians just popped into existence from nowhere.
-
Having 2 and finding 2 are totally different.
-
Having 2 and finding 2 are totally different.
Exactly.
-
Problem is, as far as erosion is concerned, living on Earth is like living between 2 millstones, Fluidic, Tectonic, Abrasive, Freezing, Heating, you name it.
-
Keep in mind that the whole 'micro/macro' evolution thing is a false distinction to support certain sociopolitcal agendas. There is but one process going on.
-
oh, there is a transitional for between fish and amphibians, but there isn't a transition between fish and the this, and not one between fish and that, and not every single organism ever to have lived is not recorded into the fosil record
Don't understand what you're trying to say :confused:
-
oh, there is a transitional for between fish and amphibians, but there isn't a transition between fish and the this, and not one between fish and that, and not every single organism ever to have lived is not recorded into the fosil record
Don't understand what you're trying to say :confused:
That there's not a complete lineage of transitional forms, i.e. if fish is A, amphibian is C, and this is B, we don't have an AB or BC transitional form etc. Not that, of course, we'd expect to have one given the natural scarcity of the fossil record.
-
Lawl. You aren't even debating among yourselves. :pimp:
-
The fruit flies is a good example IMO, I remember they taught that in High School Biology. Go figure.
Found another article on this same thing:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18734210-401,00.html
-
Did you see the fish changing? I don't think so. Evolution didn't happen so shut up!
-
Did you see the fish changing? I don't think so. Evolution didn't happen so shut up!
:lol:
-
The fruit flies is a good example IMO, I remember they taught that in High School Biology. Go figure.
Found another article on this same thing:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18734210-401,00.html
The fruit flies one can be unfortunately derided by creationists because 'it's just another kind of fruit fly'. What they omit, of course, is that there are about distinct 15,000 species that are 'fruit flies', so you can actually show speciation with the experiments.
-
The fruit flies is a good example IMO, I remember they taught that in High School Biology. Go figure.
Found another article on this same thing:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18734210-401,00.html
The fruit flies one can be unfortunately derided by creationists because 'it's just another kind of fruit fly'. What they omit, of course, is that there are about distinct 15,000 species that are 'fruit flies', so you can actually show speciation with the experiments.
Yeah.
To be honest, creationism I don't really have all that much patience with. I'm yet to meet someone in person who believes in it, though I admit I don't go around asking. But if someone is going to simply ignore such a significant part of science without a proper plausable alternative, then good for them. They can go live in their ginger bread house and candy furniture because quite frankly. I don't give a ****. :)
I'd like to believe I could still be friends with someone who believes it, but it would be difficult for me to understand such logic.
/rant
-
Yeah.
To be honest, creationism I don't really have all that much patience with. I'm yet to meet someone in person who believes in it, though I admit I don't go around asking. But if someone is going to simply ignore such a significant part of science without a proper plausable alternative, then good for them. They can go live in their ginger bread house and candy furniture because quite frankly. I don't give a ****. :)
I'd like to believe I could still be friends with someone who believes it, but it would be difficult for me to understand such logic.
/rant
I think in quite a few threads Kara shown pretty comprehensively that creationists can't even say what Intelligent Design is, so it's such a nonsensical idea it deserves ignorance. Unfortunately, remaining quiet can be regarded as tacti acceptance, so we need to keep re-emphasising how idiotic ID and how it wilfully misinterprets, ignores or fabricates evidence depending on how best to attack evolution. The problem is also that, sadly, it seems to be symptomatic of a general attack upon secular society and human scientific progress by fundamentalist churches, which does have the potential to be very dangerous to all of us.
-
Dangerous as most things are these days.
I almost have a hatred towards all form of religeon to the troubles it has caused the world. But ultimately, that disgust is at humans due to my own beliefs. Vile creatures we are at times. :(
Hopefully one day we evolve into better beings. ;)
-
I'm still bedazzled on how they know for a fact this is some transitional species and not just some new species that we never found before. You know, since we don't even know of every living creature :rolleyes: By all means I would love to hear the explanation on how scientists know all this about a 365 million year old set of bones. Evolutionist people are just as crazy as Intelligent Design folk...................you need to have some strong faith to believe in either of them.
-
Ah. We've found one. Someone new enough to attempt to stick their head into this debate.
Who wants to go first? :D
-
That's the dilemma, should we let the veterans 'handle' him and potentially scare him off, or should the less-experienced folk take this one... :p
-
I'm yet to meet someone in person who believes in it
count yourself lucky
/*grumbles something about southern Illinois*/
-
I'm still bedazzled on how they know for a fact this is some transitional species and not just some new species that we never found before. You know, since we don't even know of every living creature :rolleyes: By all means I would love to hear the explanation on how scientists know all this about a 365 million year old set of bones. Evolutionist people are just as crazy as Intelligent Design folk...................you need to have some strong faith to believe in either of them.
What they do is they look at the skeletal features and identify how they correspond to both preceeding species and latter species, and fit that animal in the evolutionary chain. For example, in this fossil they discovered transitional features such as the beginnings of wrist bones, shoulders, etc; similar to how you can see elements of wrist bones in dolphin or whale fins (which of course moved off of land having evolved from land based mammals). It is a new species, of course, but it represents a transition between body types which we can date back to a point in time where, thanks to other fossil evidence, we know this type of transition occured. And the importance of this specimen is that it shows a transition occuring between the characteristics of a purely water-living organism - i.e. fish - and one capable of supporting itself on land - i.e. amphibian - and that those transitional features can be seen as the precursors of features found in later land mammals. Hence, transitional.
I'm not entirely sure you understand this, though, given that you don't seem to understand what a transitional fossil is. That would concern me, that you're claiming it's based on faith when you don't seem to understand some of the basic concepts - tell me, if this is an organism with physical characteristics that can be mapped as 'between' two organisms which are dated to live before and after it, what do you think it is? Where do you think a) it came from and b) the organisms sharing those characteristics in more refined or specialised forms came from?
-
Wow.............I know what a transitional fossil is, but I don't believe we know the reality of 365 million years ago. Also, I'm not quite sure if this eluded you or what, but you can't have a debate with someone who doesnt support either side :p
-
Wow.............I know what a transitional fossil is, but I don't believe we know the reality of 365 million years ago. Also, I'm not quite sure if this eluded you or what, but you can't have a debate with someone who doesnt support either side :p
Can you actually provide any basis whatsoever to your belief as to what we can and cannot determine via paleontolgy (etc)? Because at the moment you really should provide some form of evidence that you're not being wilfully or otherwise ignorant here in making that assumption (that this cannot be a transitional form).
-
Wow.............I know what a transitional fossil is, but I don't believe we know the reality of 365 million years ago.
Why do you believe that against best scientific evidence that we can. What evidence do you have to refute this evidence or are you simply making this claim based on gut instinct and conjecture?
You claim that we can't know anything of the sort based on fossils so I have to ask you what about all those dinosaur bones? Are we supposed to believe that they are the bones of dragons instead? Are we supposed to say we can't prove that they were reptiles? Or that we can't know what they ate based on their body types?
Where exactly are you drawing the line of what paleontology can and can not tell us. Because so far you've simply made the assertion that we can't tell if this is a transitional form and not given any details as to what can and what can not be determined by science.
-
@karajorma
I'm not saying that we don't know anything of the sort based on fossils. All I am saying is it is nothing more than speculation/educated guesswork based on certain rules of science. Its not like science is flawless either. Remember, man is fallible, meaning any and everything we think/say/do/create/experience is subject to flaws. :nod:
-
@karajorma
I'm not saying that we don't know anything of the sort based on fossils. All I am saying is it is nothing more than speculation/educated guesswork based on certain rules of science. Its not like science is flawless either. Remember, man is fallible, meaning any and everything we think/say/do/create/experience is subject to flaws. :nod:
Educated. Science has never been regarded as flawless - not here, not by scientists, not by anyone who knows what it is. But to take the view that being an imperfect race means learning is worthless, would leave us back at the stage of neanderthals. If you really want to write of science as mere guesswork, then your computer is mere guesswork. The transmission of this post is mere guesswork. That the food you eat won't kill you is mere guesswork. That the sun doesn't extinguish itself in the sea and the world isn't flat is mere guesswork.
-
Don't jump all over him quite so fast. He has a point. Several times we've made the determination (about creatures that are still alive) based on the physical evidence, then retrospectively gone back to examine the DNA and decided they're really not related at all.
On the other hand, that's arguably evolution at work too...parallel evolution.
-
How does he have a point that this isn't a 375m year old fossil? How does he have a point claiming that science is faith based when it is exactly the opposite of that?
No one says that science is flawless but to dump the findings and go back to mysticism and gut feeling based on the fact that it might be wrong is foolish. Science gives you the best possible answer that we know about.
Can you give me any good reason why we should dump that and go with a lesser explaination?
-
Don't jump all over him quite so fast. He has a point. Several times we've made the determination (about creatures that are still alive) based on the physical evidence, then retrospectively gone back to examine the DNA and decided they're really not related at all.
On the other hand, that's arguably evolution at work too...parallel evolution.
We're not talking about DNA connections, though, or direct lineage. It's not like finding out, say, a donkey is not related to a cat in the expected way. The fact that we can show this physical body design existed on any organism, and at this time in history is immensely important in proving the hypotheses; not the exact species transitions of saying x and y preceeded z, but in that z existed and had features that can be seen as direct predecessors to everything after.
-
Don't jump all over him quite so fast. He has a point. Several times we've made the determination (about creatures that are still alive) based on the physical evidence, then retrospectively gone back to examine the DNA and decided they're really not related at all.
On the other hand, that's arguably evolution at work too...parallel evolution.
Convergent evolution. And it's one of the reasons why paleontologists are now so very, very found of advanced/primitive features - such as certain bones and stuff - because they imply actual, not just purely morphological, relationship.
A good example of this would be New World Vultures - condors. Classically they were classified under order Falconiformes. At some point at 1980s people started to pay attention to certain weird features in NWVs' legs that were quite unlike those of Old World vultures, buzzards, accipiters, falcons etc. However, they were quite similar to storks'.
Sibley-Ahlquist phylogenetic tree, based on DNA-DNA hybridization (a relatively new technique, mind you!) essentially confirmed this. Your Turkey Vultures are more closely related to storks than they are to red-tailed hawks or american kestrels (I think you were American. It doesn't really matter though :) ). They all belong in really ****ed-up superfamily Ciconiiformes, which has stuff like grebes, pelicans, birds of prey (both NWVs and classical Falconiiformes), penguins and stuff.
What's the point? Of course we cannot know everything. The scientific method itself assumes that as we get more information, old theories become unsustainable. The breakthrough of 1950s - explaining DNA - is only slowly starting to pay off. Paleontology, cladistics, phylogenetics, zoology, population ecology and several other things are where they are because of genetics.
OK, so many scientific outbreaks of earlier, more innocent times are now obsolete. Ours could very well be in few centuries or even decades. However, as we cannot predict future we can only take what's observable, provable, falsifiable, empirically testable and use those to build rigorous, mathematic scientific method. Which is self-correcting, mind you. Not anything passes - you can spout inane bull**** and maybe even get it published, but it will get shot down and forgotten. If you actually have something resembling something viable it will come under extremely harsh probing and beating and kicking. If it still lasts, then someone will make a prediction and try to test it. And the bully crowd is still there, just dying to find a proverbial crack in the wall.
-
evolution doesnt work, its circular thinking, and theres nothing to prove it, i dont care what anyone says....
just lose it, there is an ultimate creator, his name is Jesus, and evolution is just a lie from Satan...
Oh, you might want to know this... The closest animal realted to the human?
NO, its not a monkey or a primate, but THE CHICKEN, thats right, the closest Animal related to humans by matchin enzyme types is THE CHICKEN!!
-
evolution doesnt work, its circular thinking, and theres nothing to prove it, i dont care what anyone says....
just lose it, there is an ultimate creator, his name is Jesus, and evolution is just a lie from Satan...
Oh, you might want to know this... The closest animal realted to the human?
NO, its not a monkey or a primate, but THE CHICKEN, thats right, the closest Animal related to humans by matchin enzyme types is THE CHICKEN!!
are you serious?
that makes you seem so much less intelligent than i gave you credit for before. you refuse to think and reject the theory that is based on observation and thought in favor of the one that was handed to you by your parents or by some guy in a big building with a cross on top.
unless youre joking, i cant tell
-
He's joking :)
At least I hope :nervous:
-
Joking, I presume.
Hope.
The 'chicken-human' thing comes from Duane Gish, a noted ID propagandist (who makes basic errors like not knowing the 2nd law of thermodynamics in trying to dismiss evolution). Anyways, it's basically a lie (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html). Apparently his arguement was that human lysozyme (a protein) is closer to chicken lysozyme than human lactalbumin, thus we are chickens. No, really. As a reference, of about 131 amino acids the Chicken lysozyme is different by 51 to human lysozyme. Chimp lysozyme is identical.
In other words, if I have white hair and skin, and my cat has white hair, and my mum has black hair & white skin, I'm more closely related to the cat because it has the same colour of hair. It's that sort of logic. In fact, it's so mindnumbingly stupid, it's hard to find an idiotic enough allegory.
-
he's got to be.
if he was a real fundie he would not have called the 'ultimate creator' Jesus, he would have called it God.
God is the creator, Jesus is the savior.
-
Chicken thing is scary, though; him to have heard it means that someone actually publishes and disseminates that crap.
-
Wow, that chicken thing has to be the stupidest thing I ever heard. By far. I feel dumber already just for reading it.
-
The more you listen to creationist arguments the more you realise that they are often close to that level of idiocy. You just need to understand the science to have it translated to you.
For instance have you never heard the one about how "if humans evolved from chimps why are there still chimps?" Lets ignore the fact that one species can evolve from another without replacing it due to geographical reasons and go for the big really satifying flaw in the argument. Humans didn't evolve from chimps. You won't find a single person who actually understands evolution who will say that we did.
The problem is that most people don't understand the science involved so it's easy to confuse them and make it sound like the argument is saying something valid. What makes it worse is that the person arguing against evolution often doesn't actually understand his counter-arguement either and is parroting it from another source. Hence the whole thing with chicken enzymes :rolleyes:
-
Or that evolution 'violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics', which is one of the aformentioned Gishes ones.
-
this is makeing me want to go pick a fight with some creationists.
-
this is makeing me want to go pick a fight with some creationists.
Why do you think I posted this? It's great fun, except they don't play any more because they always lose and look foolish.
-
Or that evolution 'violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics', which is one of the aformentioned Gishes ones.
Yep. I was thinking of that at the time but I choose one which is easier to explain :) To anyone with a good understanding of physics the idea that the 2nd law works the way Gish describes is laughable as their claim that increases in order from disorder also rule out the possibility of snow flakes and other crystals amongst other things.
-
Or that evolution 'violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics', which is one of the aformentioned Gishes ones.
Yep. I was thinking of that at the time but I choose one which is easier to explain :) To anyone with a good understanding of physics the idea that the 2nd law works the way Gish describes is laughable as their claim that increases in order from disorder also rule out the possibility of snow flakes and other crystals amongst other things.
Plus the whole 'earth is a closed system' is stupidity defined.
-
Actually I think Specified Complexity is probably the most ridiculous argument of the lot to be honest. That's the one that say if you work out the chance of human beings evolving from single celled organisms is so low that there must be a creator. Yes the chance of humans specifically evolving is low. The chance of something evolving is vitually a certainty though.
Best analogy i've heard is to say it is like dealing out a deck of cards between 4 people and then calculating the possibility of them holding the particular hand they each hold. While the possibility of them holding that particular hand is low the probability that after dealing out the cards they would be holding a hand is 1 in 1.
-
Actually I think Specified Complexity is probably the most ridiculous argument of the lot to be honest. That's the one that say if you work out the chance of human beings evolving from single celled organisms is so low that there must be a creator. Yes the chance of humans specifically evolving is low. The chance of something evolving is vitually a certainty though.
Best analogy i've heard is to say it is like dealing out a deck of cards between 4 people and then calculating the possibility of them holding the particular hand they each hold. While the possibility of them holding that particular hand is low the probability that after dealing out the cards they would be holding a hand is 1 in 1.
Classic mistake, that one. Also it helps a lot to remember sexual as well as natural selection, and to be honest I wasn't really aware of the former until fairly recently.
-
Really doesn't take that much for something simple and random to turn into something seemingly complex. The game of life is a good example of this, with just a few extremely simple rules allowing hugely complex, and seemingly 'alive' scenarios to unfold.
-
Really doesn't take that much for something simple and random to turn into something seemingly complex. The game of life is a good example of this, with just a few extremely simple rules allowing hugely complex, and seemingly 'alive' scenarios to unfold.
It certainly doesn't, because even if the chance is 1/15153th, it's been taking billions of years. even 1/100 000 000 000 can happen, and propably will in some span of time.
Seriously though, I would love if we would stop ridiculing creationsts and instead give them hard irrefutable arguments instead. I am propably one of the most hardcore evolutionists in this forum - even though I am nowhere as eloquent or elegant as aldo or Kara - but sometimes I think that groupthink and "LOL" arguments are too common.
Evolutionary theory is, by far, one of the best scientific hypothesises we have. There are more grounds for attacking gravity or general relativity or certain philosophic ideals or quantum theories than there are to attack evolution. Sarcasm, inside jokes and stuff like that is unneeded, because
A) evolution is very, very well proved
B) you can't really change mind in INTTERNET
Just simply refer to empirical proof. You'll find lots of it. Like, huge amounts. JUST LOOK AT THE FUKKEN MODERN MEDICINE YOU DUMB ****ES
-
We can't engage creationists on any sort of meaningful arguement becase they won't participate in one. They don't have a theory to disprove, after all, just a bunch of misconceptions about scientific orthodoxy. And I think it deserves ridicule, frankly, because it is ridiculous that this is being entertained as education by governments.
-
this is makeing me want to go pick a fight with some creationists.
then I'm standing by... bring your maxim and kayser if you want to...
Oh, and I'm NOT joking, Jesus IS god.
Youre trying to tell me youve never heard the word "the trinity" before?
God the Father (God), God the Son (Jesus), and God the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), I'm telling you guys, this evolution stuff isn't true...
I can give more proof if you REALLY wanna know...
-
this is makeing me want to go pick a fight with some creationists.
then I'm standing by... bring your maxim and kayser if you want to...
Oh, and I'm NOT joking, Jesus IS god.
Youre trying to tell me youve never heard the word "the trinity" before?
God the Father (God), God the Son (Jesus), and God the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), I'm telling you guys, this evolution stuff isn't true...
I can give more proof if you REALLY wanna know...
Maybe you should start with some 'proof' before talking about 'more proof'. go on, fire away.
-
this is makeing me want to go pick a fight with some creationists.
then I'm standing by... bring your maxim and kayser if you want to...
Oh, and I'm NOT joking, Jesus IS god.
Youre trying to tell me youve never heard the word "the trinity" before?
God the Father (God), God the Son (Jesus), and God the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), I'm telling you guys, this evolution stuff isn't true...
I can give more proof if you REALLY wanna know...
Maybe you should start with some 'proof' before talking about 'more proof'. go on, fire away.
Fine... when I have time ill scan pages off my science book... thats all the proof you'll need....
-
Since the other popcorn-and-soda thread today got locked, I'm looking forward to following this one :D
-
Creationism - When you really want to blame God for your unattractive chest hair.
-
this is makeing me want to go pick a fight with some creationists.
then I'm standing by... bring your maxim and kayser if you want to...
Oh, and I'm NOT joking, Jesus IS god.
Youre trying to tell me youve never heard the word "the trinity" before?
God the Father (God), God the Son (Jesus), and God the Spirit (the Holy Spirit), I'm telling you guys, this evolution stuff isn't true...
I can give more proof if you REALLY wanna know...
Maybe you should start with some 'proof' before talking about 'more proof'. go on, fire away.
Fine... when I have time ill scan pages off my science book... thats all the proof you'll need....
'science' book?
Oh, god, please tell me it's not that bloody pandas thing.
anyways, you mean you don't know it well enough to even quote anything ad-verbatim? Beyond the complete and utter rubbish of the humans-chickens thing, based on a quote formed by a faulty analogy which never had any experimental evidence published to attempt to support it?
-
*starts the beating of the drums*
How old are you btw Zman?
-
Seriously though, I would love if we would stop ridiculing creationsts and instead give them hard irrefutable arguments instead. I am propably one of the most hardcore evolutionists in this forum - even though I am nowhere as eloquent or elegant as aldo or Kara - but sometimes I think that groupthink and "LOL" arguments are too common.
Problem is that they aren't willing to sit down and listen to hard irrefutable arguments. Secondly even if they are it's very hard to get them to understand them as it's quite rare for a creationist to have a good understanding of what evolution actually is. How often have you heard someone claim that evolution is random for instance? Even a basic understanding of natural selection will show you that it not but yet we still hear that time and time again.
You can't even destroy their arguments because quite often they don't understand them either. If you looked at the last couple of ID debates I ended up having to explain what ID actually was to be the people who had been arguing in favour of it. How can you pursuade someone to listen to an argument on a subject they don't like when they can't even be bothered to listen to the side of the argument that does support their beliefs?
-
ZmaN, ok after examining sevral aspects of your profile, namely your sig and a few pages of your last few posts, I have determined that you are in fact serious, I found it hard to beleive that you've been here for nearly a year and kept under my radar all this time, but such a thing is not unheard of.
in my origonal post I was my comments were in regard to general tendancies I have noticed, in the past when people have refered to the creator generaly speaking the name they give is God, even though God, Jesus, and 'The Holy Spirit' are technicaly the same deity more or less, so the names can be used interchangable, it's just generaly one name is used more oftine in certan situations that other, the name "God" 'The Father' is usualy used when describeing God 'the creator of the universe' as opposed to Jesus 'the son'. this tendancy coupled with the rediculus claims you were putting forth and the rediculus manner in wich you were presenting them AND the fact that I never noticed such behaviour in the past led me to, falsely, conclude that you were jokeing, I now know that I was in error, so let us begin this colorful mery-go-round of death....
nu-uh
...perhapes I should elaborate, you claim that evolution is circular logic, but is it not your own beleife system wich is founded on a book who's authority comes from the fact that it is the written word of God, when in fact the claim that it is the writen word of God does not come from God directly but indirectly through said book and the organisation(s) wich gain power from your faith in it. it would be like me to say I am God, and when you chanlenge me on such a claim I defend it by saying "do you not beleive the word of God?! I am GOD!". you can only accept creation if you beleive it to begin with as it is incapable of standing on it's own. but who knows perhaps I am once again in error, as has been demonstraited in this very thread I am capable of makeing false conclusions, give me some evidence of creation, something that would show the process in action, something on the order of the classical highschool fruit fly experiments (exept suportinf creation rather than evolution obviusly). or actualy, how old do you beleive the earth to be and why?
oh, and bring your frends, your going to need them. :)
-
oh, and bring your frends, your going to need them. :)
yeah, he probably will because it seems like its everyone vs him
i'm afraid im going to sit this one out. he doesnt need me and you trying to tear down his belief structure simultaneously
-
(for example, there is a very good fossil record for equines, and macroevolution can also be shown by fruit fly breed)
There're much better records for Brachiopods, Bivalves and Echinoids. But since they're not as nice on documentaries or the cover of magaxzines (like horses), they never get mentioned. Tis a shame, because since the fossils are so common, and the sediment layers they're found in are generally so well defined, it's quantifiable stuff. You can watch as outlines change, width/length ratios, rib and ornamentation growth, plus as the sediment around them changes... a good sedimentary/paleo dataset is ****ing fascinating.
-
Is it bad I beleive that God started eveloution (i.e. created man through eveloution)?
-
Whatever you believe is your own choice no matter how outlandish it is (not that I'm saying your particular belief is outlandish). The only thing anyone can take issue with is how you express those beliefs. Whether God exists is not a matter for science at all. It's a matter of philosophy. Whether in some way he set up the universe so that humans would evolve is similarly not a matter for science. You can always push God's intervention in creation far back enough that science can't touch it.
The problem is that some people then claim that if we don't need God to explain how humans arose then we don't need God at all. Therefore instead of having faith that God is needed as something other than the creator they atempt to discredit the scientific explaination with specious arguments like Intelligent Design.
As long as you don't attempt to claim science is wrong my argument with you is merely a philosophical one. I can't prove God doesn't exist and you can't prove he does. So why argue that either side is "bad"? Believe what you want as neither position really have anything to do with science.
-
(http://www.blutiges-gemetzel.de/blog/archives/fsm.jpg)
-
ZmaN, if/when you post the pages off your science book, do you think you can post the title/edition of the book as well?
-
I bet it would be an interesting read. In the 'laugh or cry' sort of way. The crazy thing is none of this should really be an issue, evolution and creationism are not actually at odds at all unless you really want them to be. Hopefully some creationist will eventually grow (or evolve? :p) a brain and realize this, and put an end to this nonsense. But right now that seems like wishful thinking.
-
Is it bad I beleive that God started eveloution (i.e. created man through eveloution)?
It'd be bad to teach it as science.
That applies to any form of creationism, however veiled, because it relies on something outside science (the supernatural). That doesn't make science incompatible with religion, it just means we shouldn't portray religion as science, and people shouldn't seek to invalidate science because it might contradict religion (which is what ID effectively is). It's worth always remembering that ID came about as a way to push biblical creationism into the school system and particularly the science classroom. I have nothing against ID being taught, so long as it is taught as and in the context of religious education, alongside other creation stories/myths from other religions.
But in any case, I'm not going to say your belief is bad, or wrong, because it'd be hypocritical. The very existence of God is outside the bounds of science, because sciences deals with the natural and not supernatural, and any arguement or reason I could make for arguing over it would be grounded on personal opinion on the supernatural i.e. unknowable. Albeit it is worth remembering that evolution doesn't need (a) God to work, if you're thinking natural selection & sexual selection isn't enough.
-
I have nothing against ID being taught, so long as it is taught as and in the context of religious education, alongside other creation stories/myths from other religions.
I would be against it. ID has no place at all. Creationism, fine but ID is nothing but a hollow shell and should be discarded as such. It isn't religion and it isn't science. It actually has less validity in RE class than flying spagetti monster which at least qualifies as a belief.
Teach the kids what the bible says in RE class if you wish but ID has no place anywhere.
-
I have nothing against ID being taught, so long as it is taught as and in the context of religious education, alongside other creation stories/myths from other religions.
I would be against it. ID has no place at all. Creationism, fine but ID is nothing but a hollow shell and should be discarded as such. It isn't religion and it isn't science. It actually has less validity in RE class than flying spagetti monster which at least qualifies as a belief.
Teach the kids what the bible says in RE class if you wish but ID has no place anywhere.
That's kind of the point, though. If they taught ID in RE, then it becomes obvious what it is. You pointed it out loads of times - ID has no form or subtance, no definition. Ergo, if we teach it in RE, it ends up being taught as creationism is already, and the only change they need to make is that 'God might not be the creator' rather than saying God is. Plus you can teach it in the context of explaining how certain fundamentalist groups wish to attack science because they view it as aetheistic rather than secular and neutral, and illustrate why they feel they need to do so, thus helping expose a lot more the manipulations that otherwise go unchallenged.
-
Teaching it in that context is one thing but I doubt it would actually be taught in that context. Hell in that context it could be taught in science class as an example of the difference between science and belief.
The thing is it would never be taught like that. Far more sensible to simply drop it completely and let the term fade from public memory completely.
-
Teaching it in that context is one thing but I doubt it would actually be taught in that context. Hell in that context it could be taught in science class as an example of the difference between science and belief.
The thing is it would never be taught like that. Far more sensible to simply drop it completely and let the term fade from public memory completely.
Oh yeah, undoubtedly. But until that seems more likely, I think we need to make it officially explicit that it's religion and explain the manipulation behind it. Plus it'd (fingers crossed) shut up all those calling for ID to be taught, and they'd have no comeback.
-
I didnt mean to make such a big frikin deal about this... I'm just stating that I THINK, that Creationism is true and Evolution is not, just like you guys do vice-versa....
Ok so can you please stop yelling at me....
If you must know, Im 16 years old...
-
Well why didn't you tell them that before? You're excused.
-
I didnt mean to make such a big frikin deal about this... I'm just stating that I THINK, that Creationism is true and Evolution is not, just like you guys do vice-versa....
Ok so can you please stop yelling at me....
If you must know, Im 16 years old...
do you have any basis for that belief? I mean, we are talking about throwing out over a centuries worth of scientific knowledge here (even the Vatican says evolution is fine, and they're scarcely aethesitic or secular), it'd be nice for you to have some form of logic for it. Hell, if you're 16 then maybe you're not old enough to be numb to actual learning, so maybe you just have a few honest misconceptions that could be helped with - after all, it's not like the US school system has been verging on the competent on this issue of late.
-
speaking of no comeback, where the **** did ZmaN go?
maybe I should give something a bit easier to atack...
It is a fact that there is no God.
there, he (or someone, hopefuly not just some one on my side trying to be fair) had better damn chalenge that.
-
speaking of no comeback, where the **** did ZmaN go?
maybe I should give something a bit easier to atack...
It is a fact that there is no God.
there, he (or someone, hopefuly not just some one on my side trying to be fair) had better damn chalenge that.
The existence of God is unknowable. Were it to become knowable, it would cease to be supernatural and thus cease to be God. Thus, the existence or non-existance of God can never be determined. A bit like Shroedingers cat in the dual-state of unknowingness, I guess.
Albiet I'd prefer to know why he thinks this, because I'm wondering if it's not too late to correct some of the likely mistakes; he's clearly been shown bad, incorrect and propagandistic info, going by the chicken thing mentioned earlier.
-
crap! he posted while I was reading the thread!
now I look like such a duche! :mad:
yeah, I know that, it had been a day and he hadn't posted so I wanted to give him an easy kill, but then he goes and posts right after I started reading the last page so it looks like that was in responce to him when infact it was bait to lure him back.
and come on ZmaN don't give up so easily, that isn't any fun! at the very least find a suitable replacement.
-
crap! he posted while I was reading the thread!
now I look like such a duche! :mad:
yeah, I know that, it had been a day and he hadn't posted so I wanted to give him an easy kill, but then he goes and posts right after I started reading the last page so it looks like that was in responce to him when infact it was bait to lure him back.
and come on ZmaN don't give up so easily, that isn't any fun! at the very least find a suitable replacement.
Maybe he just doesn't have the conviction in his views to feel they can withstand questioning?
-
I didnt mean to make such a big frikin deal about this... I'm just stating that I THINK, that Creationism is true and Evolution is not, just like you guys do vice-versa....
No one is yelling but you claim that evolution isn't true. You are wrong. If you don't wish to know why you are wrong then you may live in ignorance if you wish. If however you are open minded enough to actually listen and hear why you're wrong I'm more than happy to explain why.
See the thing isn't that I THINK evolution is right. I've listened to the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is correct based on all the available evidence? Can you make the same claim? Do you actually understand how evolution works on anything other than the most basic level?
-
I'm Christian, and I see evolution happening all around me. I don't see how it interferes with my religion. It makes sense to me that God, being extremely intelligent, would create a system that corrects itself and improves itself as opposed to making a system that fails to react to its surroundings.
I'd be ashamed of God if he was running all of life with a setup remarkably like what Microsoft did with Windows XP:
1. Leave a bunch of holes in plain sight.
2. make it so that the system is unable to prevent or recover from crisises, and then have said crisises happen almost constantly.
My personal view of the universe is that God set up some nice rules that allow the system to change to work better, then hit the "Go" button, and the universe started (with a BANG).
off topic, but look at these if you haven't seen them already:
http://www.venganza.org/
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
-
Evolution only interferes with young Earth creationism. In other words those people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old cause the bible says so and that all the geologists, paleontologists, astronomers and anyone else whose science says different is either wrong or working for Satan.
Everyone else can simply do the same as you do and say that God set it up but let it run by itself but for the young Earth creationist the Bible contains no symbolism. Every word is the literal truth and therefore everything else must be wrong. This is exactly the attitude the Catholic Church had when they claimed that Galileo was wrong for saying that the Sun was the centre of the Solar System and not the Earth and even the Vatican has basically said that this attitude was stupid and that the Bible must be taken symbolically at times.
-
I didnt mean to make such a big frikin deal about this... I'm just stating that I THINK, that Creationism is true and Evolution is not, just like you guys do vice-versa....
Ok so can you please stop yelling at me....
If you must know, Im 16 years old...
well once you grow up and learn and mature, hopefully your opinion will have changed
-
Dude, your 18.
-
I've found there to be an exponential growth in maturity between 16-18 (and continuing thereon), and it's supported by the neurological development of various parts of the brain relating to judgement and reasoning.
-
I didnt mean to make such a big frikin deal about this... I'm just stating that I THINK, that Creationism is true and Evolution is not, just like you guys do vice-versa....
Ok so can you please stop yelling at me....
If you must know, Im 16 years old...
well once you grow up and learn and mature, hopefully your opinion will have changed
No
Dude, your 18.
No
I'm Christian, and I see evolution happening all around me. I don't see how it interferes with my religion. It makes sense to me that God, being extremely intelligent, would create a system that corrects itself and improves itself as opposed to making a system that fails to react to its surroundings.
I'd be ashamed of God if he was running all of life with a setup remarkably like what Microsoft did with Windows XP:
1. Leave a bunch of holes in plain sight.
2. make it so that the system is unable to prevent or recover from crisises, and then have said crisises happen almost constantly.
My personal view of the universe is that God set up some nice rules that allow the system to change to work better, then hit the "Go" button, and the universe started (with a BANG).
off topic, but look at these if you haven't seen them already:
http://www.venganza.org/
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
You are the one with the hole in your system... You ever read the book of Genesis in the Bible? Go read it...
crap! he posted while I was reading the thread!
now I look like such a duche! :mad:
yeah, I know that, it had been a day and he hadn't posted so I wanted to give him an easy kill, but then he goes and posts right after I started reading the last page so it looks like that was in responce to him when infact it was bait to lure him back.
and come on ZmaN don't give up so easily, that isn't any fun! at the very least find a suitable replacement.
Oh! so you WANT me to get proof of creationism... Okay... Fine.. its on its way.....
I've found there to be an exponential growth in maturity between 16-18 (and continuing thereon), and it's supported by the neurological development of various parts of the brain relating to judgement and reasoning.
I say its messed up thinking...
-
You are the one with the hole in your system... You ever read the book of Genesis in the Bible? Go read it...
What, the earth created in 6 days, on a flat circle suspended ontop of foundations and with a curved roof (from which God 'poured' the great flood) book of Genesis?
I think, considering he is a Christian, you should consider the meaning of 'allegory'. Because if you're suggesting the Bible can be taken entirely as literal truth..... pi=3.
Oh! so you WANT me to get proof of creationism... Okay... Fine.. its on its way.....
To be brutally honest, we just want to show you why and how badly wrong you are. It's nothing personal, but it's a necessity the way society is going to highlight these things out for what they are. At least you call it creationism rather than ID, I suppose, which is honest.
I say its messed up thinking...
No, the prefontal cortex - cognitive part of the brain - develops later than the emotional parts of the brain; the brain in fact doesn't stop developing until into the twenties.
-
*Sees the holy-water equiped flame-throwers being taken from beneath peoples seats*
...
*Runs away to the ductwork and realitive safty, sacrafical lunch in hand*
-
ZmaN's arguments sound like my sarcasm gone bad-- like if I logged on this website while drunk or something.
-
I've done that.
-
At the risk of me being flamed to hell........
You guys can be very hypocritical at times. You always preech acceptance of others and you can't leave this kid alone over his beliefs. Let him believe what he wants, and stop trying to act like your way is the right way. I mean, it's obvious he isn't going to change his beliefs, and what good does feeling like you've won an arguement on the internet do?
Oh, and I do believe in evolution BTW.
-
I think it's because he's not arguing; he's spouting phrases. If he wants to believe these things, that's fine. But if he wants to argue the point, he ought to do everyone the courtesy of actually debating, as opposed to crafting such nuanced retorts as, "You are the one with the hole in your system... You ever read the book of Genesis in the Bible? Go read it..."
-
Well, yeah, if he intends to continue arguing then he needs to support his claims. But, meh, doesn't appear that he will.
-
Evolution is False. The End.
-
Evolution is False. The End.
that has to be the most compelling argument i've ever heard
-
Evolution is False. The End.
Agreed..
I have two out of three pages scanned and a little something I wrote up for your information on this subject..
Ill have that up in two days, MAX....
Also, I have a friend who made a powerpoint presentation, which I will attatch for you guys to look at..
-
Evolution is False. The End.
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/MoreCowbell.jpg)
-
Evolution is False. The End.
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/MoreCowbell.jpg)
That does nothing but make you look like a fruitcake...
-
You should see me in person.
-
Evolution is False. The End.
Agreed..
I have two out of three pages scanned and a little something I wrote up for your information on this subject..
Ill have that up in two days, MAX....
Also, I have a friend who made a powerpoint presentation, which I will attatch for you guys to look at..
Busting out research papers eh? Sunday i will have my report posted in this topic also.
-
lol, theyre banding together like having two people that believe lies makes them more true
believe it or not, billions of people can be wrong
-
Evolution is False. The End.
Anything to support this, except "God said so," an excerpt from a science book, or some random high school research paper?
I could easily do the same thing: "Creation is false. The end with your beliefs." But until I have some evidence to support that creationism is dead wrong, I can't make such an outlandish statement. There is hard proof for evolution, such as human and monkey genetics being nearly identical. For creationism, there exists old myths and thousand-year-old stories that say the Earth was created in six days and man rose up out of the dust.
Still, to each his own, I suppose.
-
I could easily do the same thing: "Creation is false. The end with your beliefs." But until I have some evidence to support that creationism is dead wrong, I can't make such an outlandish statement.
Speak for yourself.
Creation is false. The end with your beliefs! :p
-
alright this topic is starting to look up finaly
-
Im likely to get flamed for this. Withhold your flames.
Well i posted the first 3 posts without reading whole topic. Zman thanked me in a PM for supporting him, as i was the only one sofar (except one other, Turey). Upon bordum, i now have read the whole topic.
First of all i am telling you all right now: Stop picking on Zman. Leave him alone. I see alot of flameing and hostile remarks. This is turning into a brawl and i wont have it. I will report posts or this topic if it continues. Be mature people, and that does not mean, have a fancy perfect reply. And godam it, i just lost my origional post. Have to do it all over again. *sigh* lost a ton of stuff.
Zman seems to be a beginning christian, yes, the way he portreys his thoughts on the matter may seem a bit immature. I do reconize he has stated what he knows out of 'it just is' and not 'fact'. Without the best of explinations. No need to jump on him for it.
I am a Christian. Have been all my life. I beleive i am, what some call a 'spiritually mature'. I cant spell worth **** so forgive me.
Sofar, many renowned members and regular members here, have claimed several things. I will try to recall a few offhand:
1) Creationists do not know bare anything about Evolution, natural selection, ID etc.
2) We are foolish and blindly attack, and dont know what it is were using to attack or what we are attacking. Something like that, lol.
3) Creationists have no evidence supporting or disproveing evolution or creationism. Just blind faith and emotions, is what is leading us. What our parents taught us 'evolution is bad'.
4) That ALL Creationists are Ignorant
5) I dont know where that chicken thing came from either
6) W\e i lost a few.. sue me.
7) That, you guys like posting topics like this, so the few Xians that speak up, will try to attack it and fail and look stupid haveing not supportive material for their arguement or w\e. Like rats in a cage. You ****ing call That mature? Meh to you all.
Kara, and several memebers have said many thigns which are discriminatory. I beleive the forum rules was agienst being discriminatory. You all are not giveing our side a chance. You all are flaming and attacking creationists and christians, just as quick as you claim we attack you guys. Some of you are acting childish. Act like the mature HLPites you are all susposed to be. Think before you post. 2\3'rds of the posts here have been a "yeah-what-he-said, you-all-suck" kind of replys. Spam in other topics.
I have done my own research to an extent, last year, on Evolution VS. Creationism. Tho my knoloage of Evolution and Creation is limited, i do know the basis for both, and a good deal about Evolution, Natural Selection, Big Bang Theory, stuff about fossils, and yes, i do know a general bit about Inteligent Design. So, because you all want someone to pick on, and fight agienst, its me. Leave Zman alone, and talk to me. If anyone is more qualified to take a stand for Creationism, agienst all you pplz, it would be me; as no one else is standing up but me and Zman. My research paper, which i will post sunday night, is 6 Word pages, dubble spaced, 12 font, rockwell. I spent a good deal of time in Creation Vs Evolution books.
Its late and i will go to bed after this, be patient, and i will read and reply to this thread tomorrow around noon.
ALDO, you said "We can't engage creationists on any sort of meaningful arguement becase they won't participate in one."
I will praticipate and im here. Lets have an arguement.
MARS, said "Is it bad I beleive that God started eveloution (i.e. created man through eveloution)?"
Yes, because that is one of the many runoffs of creationism. It is based on truth and God, but strays to a compromiseable position. God did not say "and he created man to evolve" thus.. he did not. I dont have time not to come up with a good rockhard stronghold now. So dont rail me about this.
BOBBAU, said "and come on ZmaN don't give up so easily, that isn't any fun! at the very least find a suitable replacement."
That would be me.
KARA, said "See the thing isn't that I THINK evolution is right. I've listened to the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is correct based on all the available evidence? Can you make the same claim?"
There is evidence supporting Evolution, and Creationism. You comeing up with your Own conclusion, is not a fact itself, it is your opinion. You have to think to find a conclusion. Analize the data. So you are saying "I THINK" evolution is right, and creationism is wrong. Your doing exactly what he is, except your saying you are right and he is wrong. Hyprocrite. I have listened to evidence for both, and i have come up with my own conclusion which i think is right. I, neither, can say i have a fact clear cut final peice of undesputable evidence, because God himself hasent come down to earth and showed himself off to the masses yet. So i cant say i have Physical God as physical evidence proveing my case. So, neither can be proved.
TUREY, said "It makes sense to me that God, being extremely intelligent, would create a system that corrects itself and improves itself as opposed to making a system that fails to react to its surroundings."
Hey, guess what, he did! The greenhouse effect, the canopy theory. God created Man. Man without sin. He would have been able to live forever. But he sinned, and death and error entered into the world. Man went from liveing forever, to 900 years to 600 to 100 now to 70-85. More sin, longer 'infection' or 'infestation' through the generations, degenerates man and his body. We would have been able to live forever. Heal from injuries way faster, and alot more.
ALDO ALSO, said "What, the earth created in 6 days, on a flat circle suspended ontop of foundations and with a curved roof (from which God 'poured' the great flood) book of Genesis?
I think, considering he is a Christian, you should consider the meaning of 'allegory'. Because if you're suggesting the Bible can be taken entirely as literal truth..... pi=3."
The earth was created in 6 days. Allegory? Well, only if you concider the meaning of "Literal". Im suggesting, some of the bible can be taken figuratively, literaly, and alegory. Many scholers and learned historians reconise the bible, expecially the Old Testament, as a Historical book. They even have confirmed its accuracy. From the text of the Old Testament, most of it, is history of the people, families, and certian events. Historical Document. Proof. When it gets to Genesis, about the beginning, and the arc, it may get a bit fuzy for the historical refrences, as, no one was there to prove or disprove or witness anything, about 'in the beginning'. Well, besides that, look at the worldwide flood. Several peoples ancient history tells of a great flood, covering the mountians. The Noahainac Flood (sp?). Canopes of water from the sky\space w\e area came crashing down, and at the same time, water from under the earth, came crashing through the earths crust and it filled from the bottom too. Meh, more later. Tired as ****.
FORDPERFECT, said "Did you see the fish changing? I don't think so. Evolution didn't happen so shut up!"
"Yeah, what he said!"
-
Oh, this is going to be good.
-
There is evidence supporting Evolution, and Creationism. You comeing up with your Own conclusion, is not a fact itself, it is your opinion....
Umh.. can you provide any evidence supporting Creationism that is not totally permeated with Christian beliefs or rather beliefs of any of the 'Abrahamic religions' (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) which all are more or less just different aspects of the same religion.
-
How old are you btw Zman?
From his signature, general inability to write the English langauge, and his startlingly similar speech patterns (is that right phrase?) to writers encountered at fanfiction.net...I'm going to guess he's about 12. Perhaps less. I place little to no stock in the age anyone gives out on the Internet, so whether he says he's 16 or not, I maintain he's 12. Or less.
BTW, fun fact: Catholicism supports evolution. It's official, folks, there was a Papal Bull on it in the '80s. If you happen to be Roman Catholic, that's your cue to get out of ID while you still have vague dignity left.
-
Charismatic: I'm Christian, and yet I find literal creationism, ID, and the overall refusal to accept science because of fear of it breaking one's system of beliefs to be a sickening perversion of the religion. Nowhere in any version of the bible that I've ever read does Jesus say "Thou shall not seek to explain the world around you". Nowhere is it prohibited to explore your origins without looking at a book - written in the language of man - to confirm that any explanation you present is considered to be "safe". Those restrictions have come about, throughout Christian era, by the church or by individuals who draw their power and influence from their established power over beliefs.
Now, to actually address some of that giant orange blob up there.
First of all i am telling you all right now: Stop picking on Zman. Leave him alone. I see alot of flameing and hostile remarks. This is turning into a brawl and i wont have it. I will report posts or this topic if it continues. Be mature people, and that does not mean, have a fancy perfect reply. And godam it, i just lost my origional post. Have to do it all over again. *sigh* lost a ton of stuff.
Zman seems to be a beginning christian, yes, the way he portreys his thoughts on the matter may seem a bit immature. I do reconize he has stated what he knows out of 'it just is' and not 'fact'. Without the best of explinations. No need to jump on him for it.
I am a Christian. Have been all my life. I beleive i am, what some call a 'spiritually mature'. I cant spell worth **** so forgive me.
I'm trying really hard to not flame the 14-year-old defending the 16-year-old for his beliefs, regardless of who these people are, on the grounds of "spiritual maturity". This is a mature community, particularly in the people who have responded thus far, so maturity really shouldn't be an issue one way or another. "Spiritual" maturity is a function of overall maturity, as being mature (not necessarily the same as acting mature) is a prerequisite to being able to do the soul-searching needed to come to a definitive stance on one's spirituality. However, there's a certain irony here that I just had to highlight.
Sofar, many renowned members and regular members here, have claimed several things. I will try to recall a few offhand:
1) Creationists do not know bare anything about Evolution, natural selection, ID etc.
2) We are foolish and blindly attack, and dont know what it is were using to attack or what we are attacking. Something like that, lol.
3) Creationists have no evidence supporting or disproveing evolution or creationism. Just blind faith and emotions, is what is leading us. What our parents taught us 'evolution is bad'.
4) That ALL Creationists are Ignorant
5) I dont know where that chicken thing came from either
6) W\e i lost a few.. sue me.
7) That, you guys like posting topics like this, so the few Xians that speak up, will try to attack it and fail and look stupid haveing not supportive material for their arguement or w\e. Like rats in a cage. You ****ing call That mature? Meh to you all.
Kara, and several memebers have said many thigns which are discriminatory. I beleive the forum rules was agienst being discriminatory. You all are not giveing our side a chance. You all are flaming and attacking creationists and christians, just as quick as you claim we attack you guys. Some of you are acting childish. Act like the mature HLPites you are all susposed to be. Think before you post. 2\3'rds of the posts here have been a "yeah-what-he-said, you-all-suck" kind of replys. Spam in other topics.
That list is pretty accurate, yes, but they are all valid points (at least, I've never seen someone who has bucked even one of the trends). Of course, I don't know what 5 and 6 are refering to other than that idiotic chicken thing that was mentioned earlier. The point is, any piece of "evidence" thrown out that isn't from the Bible is equally shoddy. If you find something that's actually a valid point, bring it here, please. But everything that's ever been mentioned has been shredded like tissue paper the moment someone gets a big enough chunk of it to look it up. And that which comes from the bible, well, that gets in to another debate that I'll get back to later.
I have done my own research to an extent, last year, on Evolution VS. Creationism. Tho my knoloage of Evolution and Creation is limited, i do know the basis for both, and a good deal about Evolution, Natural Selection, Big Bang Theory, stuff about fossils, and yes, i do know a general bit about Inteligent Design. So, because you all want someone to pick on, and fight agienst, its me. Leave Zman alone, and talk to me. If anyone is more qualified to take a stand for Creationism, agienst all you pplz, it would be me; as no one else is standing up but me and Zman. My research paper, which i will post sunday night, is 6 Word pages, dubble spaced, 12 font, rockwell. I spent a good deal of time in Creation Vs Evolution books.
Again, and don't take this the wrong way, you're not really mature enough in your educational progression to really comprehend everything you claim you do there. I'll go ahead and warn you, though, that posting your essay will likely only bring out more criticism than will help you. And here's why: you sound like you based most of it off of Creation vs. Evolution debate books in particular, rather than books on each one individually; those sources are notoriously weak. I hope I'm wrong on this, but you haven't necessarily advanced far enough in school to know how to tell a good source from a not so good one. And that's not personal, it's just a fact of life.
KARA, said "See the thing isn't that I THINK evolution is right. I've listened to the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is correct based on all the available evidence? Can you make the same claim?"
There is evidence supporting Evolution, and Creationism. You comeing up with your Own conclusion, is not a fact itself, it is your opinion. You have to think to find a conclusion. Analize the data. So you are saying "I THINK" evolution is right, and creationism is wrong. Your doing exactly what he is, except your saying you are right and he is wrong. Hyprocrite. I have listened to evidence for both, and i have come up with my own conclusion which i think is right. I, neither, can say i have a fact clear cut final peice of undesputable evidence, because God himself hasent come down to earth and showed himself off to the masses yet. So i cant say i have Physical God as physical evidence proveing my case. So, neither can be proved.
There's a difference in thinking evolution is right because it is the best explanation among many based on phenomenon that can be observed, that predicts behaviors in observable experiments, and that can be used to better understand the perils we risk in our actions every day in the world, and in having faith that what you read in a book/heard from your parents/heard from your pastor. The former is testable. It is usable. It is supportable by a literal multitude of evidence. The latter is supported by a book and what someone said. If you can't see the difference, then there is really no point in arguing as the significance (or lack thereof) of any arguments made will be totally lost on you. Choosing to have faith in your beliefs is not wrong, far from it. But telling us that we are wrong because we do not share your faith is very wrong and it tends to make people mad.
ALDO ALSO, said "What, the earth created in 6 days, on a flat circle suspended ontop of foundations and with a curved roof (from which God 'poured' the great flood) book of Genesis?
I think, considering he is a Christian, you should consider the meaning of 'allegory'. Because if you're suggesting the Bible can be taken entirely as literal truth..... pi=3."
The earth was created in 6 days. Allegory? Well, only if you concider the meaning of "Literal". Im suggesting, some of the bible can be taken figuratively, literaly, and alegory. Many scholers and learned historians reconise the bible, expecially the Old Testament, as a Historical book. They even have confirmed its accuracy. From the text of the Old Testament, most of it, is history of the people, families, and certian events. Historical Document. Proof. When it gets to Genesis, about the beginning, and the arc, it may get a bit fuzy for the historical refrences, as, no one was there to prove or disprove or witness anything, about 'in the beginning'. Well, besides that, look at the worldwide flood. Several peoples ancient history tells of a great flood, covering the mountians. The Noahainac Flood (sp?). Canopes of water from the sky\space w\e area came crashing down, and at the same time, water from under the earth, came crashing through the earths crust and it filled from the bottom too. Meh, more later. Tired as ****.
The historical relevance of the Old Testament is really shaky at best. Yes, it can be shown that there may be correlations between it and historical records from other civilizations, i.e. the famine of Egypt, and to a lesser extent some of the wars and events well after Exodus. However, Genesis, where this problem with the old testement lies, is in no such way a "historical" document. Every civilization has its own creation myths ("Where did we come from"), flood myths ("We settled near a river and one day if flooded really heavily. Because we're in the bronze age, we don't know what conditions are like 20 miles away, therefore since our worldview was flooded the entire world must have been flooded too!") and similar. That doesn't mean that any one of them was right, or that they colloberate one another. That requires (gasp!) a leap of faith.
The rest I'm not going to break down on a point-by-point as I really feel it would be a) annoying as piss to me and to anyone who reads/tries to respond to me and b) counterproductive. There is a lot, and I mean a lot, in what I haven't quoted that I strongly disagree with or quite frankly can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say, but they are tangental to the creation/evolution debate that we're making central to the debate that is this thread.
Finally, there's just one statement I want to make now so that we don't get in to an argument of interpretation down the line. There are exactly two ways of looking at the bible, particularly the Old Testiment (as it's the one that's most contradictory and causes all of the "contradictions" with science) and those two ways are to either take the whole thing literally, (which fails on pi=3, among other things) or you take the whole thing as being allegorical or at least reiteratively interpreted over hundreds - if not thousands - of generations. There is no middle ground that's defensable.
-
Various comments about flaming
No one is flaming. There is a difference between saying that someone is wrong and flaming them. ZmaN and yourself are wrong. That is not a flame. At best it's a fact at worst it's an opinion. On the other hand ZmaN has accused pretty much everyone on this thread of having been taken in by Satan's lies in his first post on the subject. Not one person has complained about this. So kindly keep the comments about flames to a minimum.
1) Creationists do not know bare anything about Evolution, natural selection, ID etc.
Again this is not a flame. On three topics on this board I challenged any creationist to explain the Theory of Intelligent Design to me. Not one single person even use the the terms "irreducable complexity", "specified complexity" or "fine tuned universe" which are the 3 pillars of the Intelligent Design philosophy. In the end I had to explain the theory to those who had been arguing in favour of it. Does that not prove that there are people who argue against evolution and yet don't understand ID? In fact Stealth was the only person who ever got what ID was correct and even he failed to explain what predictions could be made from scientific applications of the theory even though he claimed it was scientific.
In arguments against evolution I have heard ridiculous parroted comments such as the chicken one ZmaN used or comments about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or even that evolution is random. This is proof that the people doing the arguing do not understand the theory. All those comments are based on fundemental misunderstandings or gross simplifications of evolutionary theory.
If that is someones argument then it is not a flame to say that they don't understand evolutionary theory. It's a fact. There are arguments you can make that show that you do understand
7) That, you guys like posting topics like this, so the few Xians that speak up, will try to attack it and fail and look stupid haveing not supportive material for their arguement or w\e. Like rats in a cage. You ****ing call That mature? Meh to you all.
You've basically described the tactics of the Intelligent Design movement. Don't get upset if people have turned them round against you. In every single debate on evolution creationists have sought to attack evolution and put it on the defensive without supplying anything that could replace it. This is in fact the "teach the controversy" strategy they are so happy with. Cause it works. The creationist points out 10 or 12 specious arguments about evolution, all of them provably false and waits for those supporting evolution to either run out of time or have to use explainations that go over the heads of the audience in order to refute them.
However I'm not standing for that tactic. I want to see how well creationists can deal with it when the tables are turned and they are expected to defend their position instead. I don't need to defend evolution. It has a very large amount of evidence and scientific experimentation to back it up. I want to see creationism prove that it has a similar backup. Cause I don't think it does. I think they'll fare even worse because the only defence against the flaws in ID is to fall back and rely on unprovable assertions from the bible or God.
Kara, and several memebers have said many thigns which are discriminatory.
I certainly haven't. I've said that people are 100% entitled to their beliefs. However if you're going to post your belief as fact on a public forum you'd better be prepared to defend it. I respect your right to believe differently from me but that doesn't mean I have to respect your belief one iota. If you're wrong I will say that you are wrong. Don't like it. Prove that you are correct.
I have done my own research to an extent, last year, on Evolution VS. Creationism. Tho my knoloage of Evolution and Creation is limited, i do know the basis for both, and a good deal about Evolution, Natural Selection, Big Bang Theory, stuff about fossils, and yes, i do know a general bit about Inteligent Design. So, because you all want someone to pick on, and fight agienst, its me. Leave Zman alone, and talk to me.
If ZmaN posts I will refute his arguments. He doesn't get an easy ride simply because he's young. This is an important debate and I refuse to let someone get away with spouting errant nonesense like that stuff about the chicken just because of their age. If ZmaN isn't old enough to debate the subject he should stay out of it and leave it to those who won't claim youth and inexperience as a shield to defend them. Truth is truth regardless of the age of the person saying it.
If anyone is more qualified to take a stand for Creationism, agienst all you pplz, it would be me; as no one else is standing up but me and Zman. My research paper, which i will post sunday night, is 6 Word pages, dubble spaced, 12 font, rockwell. I spent a good deal of time in Creation Vs Evolution books.
And how much time in evolution vs creationism books? I suspect that your research will prove to have all been done from biased sources. But we'll see when you post it.
MARS, said "Is it bad I beleive that God started eveloution (i.e. created man through eveloution)?"
Yes, because that is one of the many runoffs of creationism. It is based on truth and God, but strays to a compromiseable position. God did not say "and he created man to evolve" thus.. he did not. I dont have time not to come up with a good rockhard stronghold now. So dont rail me about this.
So now you are telling Mars that his beliefs are bad? Losing the moral high ground very quickly aren't you?
KARA, said "See the thing isn't that I THINK evolution is right. I've listened to the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is correct based on all the available evidence? Can you make the same claim?"
There is evidence supporting Evolution, and Creationism. You comeing up with your Own conclusion, is not a fact itself, it is your opinion. You have to think to find a conclusion. Analize the data. So you are saying "I THINK" evolution is right, and creationism is wrong. Your doing exactly what he is, except your saying you are right and he is wrong. Hyprocrite.
First question is whether ZmaN actually came to his own conclusion or simply was told what to think. Notice that I actually asked that question? Second question is whether he had all the necessary data present to make a fair conclusion. I doubt that either of you will be able to prove that one but I'll wait and see how flawed your arguments on evolution turn out to be. See the thing is if ZmaN didn't reach the conclusion on correct data then he is wrong.
Let me give you an analogy. A blind man steps out into the road because he thinks it is safe to cross. I can see a bus coming towards him. Am I being hypocritical if I say that he was wrong to cross the road? Or am I simply in possession of more facts and better able to what is correct.
As I've said before I'm willing to bet that when we get to examining your view of evolutionary theory we'll soon discover it is full of errors that prove you don't actually understand it despite your assertions that you do.
-
All hail the mighty edit ;)
I'll add one thing real quick that I forgot to put in my last post: I know that when someone not experienced with this debate comes around here and makes an anti-evolutionary comment that others who share their beliefs (I count what, 6 semiregulars at this point?) always send PMs of support to the one "fighting the good fight" or whatever you like to call it. While I am glad to know that you support the beliefs of others, I would much rather you express your support publicly than to build up a silent wall of support while leaving the poster to wither in the argument alone. If you actually believe it as strongly as you claim to, get involved in the debate. Go out and find that piece of evidence for your beliefs that none of us have seen yet. Don't hide behind anonymity and make it seem like there's some silent majority who agrees with you.
And I for one would go against the world alone on this debate if I had to, that's how strongly I hold the conviction that religion and science have no place intermingling. I don't care if I'm the only one who sees it, but I'm still going to call the whole anti-evolution argument idiotic because, quite frankly, it is.
-
I was going to mention this sooner, but it looked like it wasn't an issue, and then it popped up again...
Things would probably go a lot smoother if age were left out of this. As I understand it, both sides are intent on proving things that they believe are legitimate 'facts', rather than the maturity of their beliefs. For that matter it's a much more valuable learning experience than if people start ignoring things because "Oh, you'll change your mind when you grow up".
Anyway, back to my popcorn...
-
As I said Truth is truth. Doesn't matter the age of the person saying it.
-
Things would probably go a lot smoother if age were left out of this. As I understand it, both sides are intent on proving things that they believe are legitimate 'facts', rather than the maturity of their beliefs. For that matter it's a much more valuable learning experience than if people start ignoring things because "Oh, you'll change your mind when you grow up".
You're totally right with that WMC. The only reason it's worth even considering personally is that I'm actually more willing to go through and explain something in a constructive way if it was because of inexperience rather than choice that a poor or inaccurate piece of data is used, though I suppose I shouldn't expect that from everyone. I do agree that age should be left out of the argument as much as possible though because it'll lead very quickly to people banging their heads against a wall. You'll see no more of it from me :)
-
And godam it,
Ummmm...? LoL.
To take a slightly more religous question if I may:
How do you know Christiananity is right btw?
There are thousands if not millions of religeons throughout the world claiming they are right or just as right with similar or completely different views. How can you be so absolutely positive that yours is the right one?
Perhaps because this is what you were brought up with?
Realistically, as you claim to have researched evolution and creationism, should you not first study every other religeon and even non-religeon on the planet before you can rightfully claim your conclusions are based on the "right" religeon?
This is the biggest flaw I find with any religeon to be honest.
For the record (again) I am personally agnostic. I believe more in science and humankind than a god. But don't dismiss the idea of a being we cannot explain. But I do dismiss all religeon on the planet for the simple fact its influenced, written, and interpreted by man (or woman for that matter).
-
Realistically, as you claim to have researched evolution and creationism, should you not first study every other religeon and even non-religeon on the planet before you can rightfully claim your conclusions are based on the "right" religeon?
Indeed, every religeon... except Scientology... those ****ers are just plain nuts...
-
Im likely to get flamed for this. Withhold your flames.
No
First of all i am telling you all right now: Stop picking on Zman. Leave him alone.
No
That, you guys like posting topics like this, so the few Xians that speak up, will try to attack it and fail and look stupid haveing not supportive material for their arguement or w\e. Like rats in a cage. You ****ing call That mature? Meh to you all.
Mature? Maybe, maybe not. But we (or at least, when I post them, I) post these arguments so that interested parties can see what's happening in the world of biology, geology, palaeontology or whatever. You people highjack them, then you should expect what you get.
You all are not giveing our side a chance.
Of course we're not. Your side is ridiculous. Why should we give a ridiculous idea a chance?
Think before you post.
Do you think we could post these kind of scientific essay posts without thinking? I can't. I could post "Creationism is wrong. That's all." style posts without thinking, but I don't. You do. Stop being a hypocrite.
Spam in other topics.
[/color]
This topic is about Tigtaalik, and the evolution of limbs from fins. You're posting about creationism, thus the spam is yours.
There is evidence supporting Evolution, and Creationism.
There's no evidence for creationism.
That's a blanket statement, yes, but one that I've found to be 100% true in all these arguments. Rarely have I been forced to stop and think "Hey, that's a good point" and never once has a bit of simple research shown that science and evolution cannot provide a good reason for whatever spurious piece of so called evidence the creationists bring up. So, try tp prove me wrong this time, if you think you can, but I'm more than willing to stick m neck out here and say that you wont.
When it gets to Genesis, about the beginning, and the arc, it may get a bit fuzy for the historical refrences, as, no one was there to prove or disprove or witness anything, about 'in the beginning'.
The Earth was there. And once you know how to read it, it tells you all you need to know.
Well, besides that, look at the worldwide flood. Several peoples ancient history tells of a great flood, covering the mountians. The Noahainac Flood (sp?).
OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of the Worldwide flood was to kill everyone but Noah and his family because the whole world was full of evil sinners. If that's true, and if your god is infallible, then how come any of those people survived the flood to write about it, assuming they're talking about the same worldwide event?
-
ALDO ALSO, said "What, the earth created in 6 days, on a flat circle suspended ontop of foundations and with a curved roof (from which God 'poured' the great flood) book of Genesis?
I think, considering he is a Christian, you should consider the meaning of 'allegory'. Because if you're suggesting the Bible can be taken entirely as literal truth..... pi=3."
The earth was created in 6 days. Allegory? Well, only if you concider the meaning of "Literal". Im suggesting, some of the bible can be taken figuratively, literaly, and alegory. Many scholers and learned historians reconise the bible, expecially the Old Testament, as a Historical book. They even have confirmed its accuracy. From the text of the Old Testament, most of it, is history of the people, families, and certian events. Historical Document. Proof. When it gets to Genesis, about the beginning, and the arc, it may get a bit fuzy for the historical refrences, as, no one was there to prove or disprove or witness anything, about 'in the beginning'. Well, besides that, look at the worldwide flood. Several peoples ancient history tells of a great flood, covering the mountians. The Noahainac Flood (sp?). Canopes of water from the sky\space w\e area came crashing down, and at the same time, water from under the earth, came crashing through the earths crust and it filled from the bottom too. Meh, more later. Tired as ****.
Ok, biblical literalism is stemming from the whole creationist thing, but I'll bite regardless.
The biblicals honest historical value is of an allegorical/mythological reflection of historical events. Most, if not all, myths are based upon some event which becomes mythologised in order to understand it, or use it to push a particular belief system. If you accept the bible as literal truth, why not the Quaran? Or the hieroglyphic records of ancient civillisations such as Aztec, Egyptian, etc. Or the Greco-Roman creation story? Or the Viking creation myth?
One of the modern theses is that the Biblical flood story is inspired/derived of a similar story in Assyro-Babylonian mythology. I'll quote the wikipedia entry for quickness;
[q]The Atrahasis Epic, in Akkadian (the language of ancient Babylon), tells how the god Enki warns the hero Atrahasis ("Extremely Wise") of Shuruppak to dismantle his house (which is made of reeds) and build a boat to escape a flood with which the god Enlil, angered by the noise of the cities, plans to wipe out mankind. The boat is to have a roof "like Apsu" (the underworld ocean of freshwater of which Enki is lord), upper and lower decks, and must be sealed with bitumen. Atrahsis boards the boat with his family and animals and seals the door, the storm and flood begin, "bodies clog the river like dragonflies", and even the gods are afraid. After seven days the flood ends and Atrahasis offers sacrifices. Enlil is furious, but Enki defies him, "I made sure life was preserved," and eventually Enki and Enlil agree on other measures for controlling the human population. The story also exists in a later Assyrian version.[/q]
Now, you could take this as correlative - but if you do, it contradicts with the bible and Noah. (the biblical story itself contradicts itself in alternating between taking 7 pairs and 1 pair of animals IIRC). The origin as babylonian myth is supported by the term 'gofer wood' in the bible (to construct the ark), which is a type of wood not referred to elsewhere in the bible or known in Hebrew, and likely to be a translation of either the Assyrian word for 'reed' (giparu) or Babylonian 'cedar wood' (gushure iş erini).
For there to have been substantial local flooding precipatating the Noah myth isn't exactly unlikely; you'd be hard pressed to find an inhabited region that is not affected at some point in its history by flooding. Flood myths are common across civillisations, but they all vary, for example some have people surviving in treetops or high hills rather than boats - and that would contradict the bibles global flood. Also, the flood (based on biblical generation lengths and the building of the first temple) can be dated at about 2250BC; Egyptian records go back further than that (to 26BC) and have no mention of a global flood. The Great Pyramic at Cheops was built at around 25th BC, and has no water marks upon it
Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever of a 'mountain topping' flood. Perhaps you're referring to the 'anomolies' on Mt Ararat which are purported to appear as if timber. Analysis by the US Defence Intelligence Agency has dismissed this and described them as 'long linear facades', which are caused by the falling of accumulated ice and snow (the only analyst who had trouble resolving this was one who 'badly wanted to believe' it was the ark).
Now, of the canopic / underground models used to suggest how the flood occured - if a canopy of water equivalent to 40 feet global flooding existed in the atmosphere, it would raise atmospheric pressure and increase oxygen and nitrogen levels to be toxic. For that vapour to occur, it would need to be superheated - so Noah and co would be poached. Such a canopy would also have reduced the sunlight and caused significant temperature drops. And there are questions like how was this water suspended, why,m and why did it all fall at once?
Now the underground water idea; rock, i.e. the crust, doesn't float. So any water would need to be in there from before the time of Adam, somehow compressed down. Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot - and the water would be superheated, poaching Noah. Again. Finally, underground water would cause erosion around the fissures, leaving erosional deposits that would have come out with the water and been extremely noticeable and covered significant areas - none have been seen.
The other models have similar flaw, mostly relying upon miracles or selective blindness. your suggestion here would, in particular, have poached Noah because it requires superheated water. There is also no evidence of flood sediment/deposits in Greenland ice cores, which have been dated back 40,000 years. Also, such a mass of water would have broken up the icecaps, and they would not have been able to reform by modern day. There is also no comparative erosion between geographically disparate mountains; i.e. the Sierra Navadas would show the same erosion as the Andes, but they don't. There's also no evidence of a catastrophe in tree-rings, which go back to 10,000 years.
The ark, to be 450 feet and made of timber, would not only be too large to be seaworthy (wooden boats >300 ft need metal straps to strengthen them), but also too small to hold a pair of every animal and the food and water to sustain them. This becomes even more problematic when we consider the animals that exist in the world today - how would Noah get a penguin? Or a sloth? Or a koala? Or a dodo? The latter is important because it can't just have been sitting around handy; it's a species that only survive(d) in isolation from predators on an island, and in that it's scarcely alone. If we go the alternate view and say the animals included in the ark were only a select subset, how do you explain the animals that weren't included and live in the world today?
Additionally, the bible makes no mention of species like earthworms (the ark contain animals walking on the ground), which would be extinct under a global flood. Also, there's no explanation exactly how, say, a sparrow could surive the best part of a year flying continuously above a flood covered earth with no food source. Not to mention the likes of the dinosaurs, and any extinct animal, contradicting with either Noah putting every animal on his ark (brachiosaur on a 450 foot barge? Eek!) or God not letting his creations die.
There's no explanation of how the ark contained enough food for all that time, including special diets for the animals, or how that food was kept fresh and free from parasites. The small crew would also need to dispose of a rather large amount of manure, which was deposited by animals housed below the waterline. Tonnes, in fact. There's also no explanation of how the ark could be ventilated. The animals would also require a massive amount of excercising (including the predators); how was that achieved on a tiny crew with animals cooped in small rooms? Or how could you feed and water all those animals with just 8 people?
There are also numerous geological features that contradict any form of great flood. And the survival of plants, fish (because fish survive in either salt, clear, etc water - global flooding would mean at least some died from the change in that, not to mention inter-species competition), diseases (that don't exist in hosts other than humans), or short lived species (such as mayflies, which require to lay eggs in fresh water within a few days) contradicts the bible. Also, the flood would destroy the habitats for all those animals on the ark, meaning they'd die once released anyways (pity the poor penguin, who treks all the way to discover the icecaps have fragmented due to the flood water buoyancy). Also the predators would be screwed, because predators need to have a singificantly larger number of prey than their own population, and you'd see the predators kill off the prey and then starve to death. Not to mention populations of <20 animals are effectively unviable and doomed to extinction. And that the flood myth doesn't mention the hermaphrodite animals, those reproducing asexually, etc.
And of course there is no explanation for the geographical disparity of animal species - why are marsupials only found in Australia? Why lemurs only in Madagascar? what about interdependencies between organisms, like between the yucca plant and yucca moth? None of these can occur with the flood scenario.
Plus, if God is omnipotent (and you'd have to be to deposit water at a rate of something like 30ft per hour), why use a flood? Why not just click fingers and remove everything you don't want? Did the flood remove all the wicked people from the world?
Although this is all a digression from the topic.
FORDPERFECT, said "Did you see the fish changing? I don't think so. Evolution didn't happen so shut up!"
"Yeah, what he said!"
Please tell me you're not taking that seriously?
-
As always, i'm siding with Firefly's view...
Shepherd Book - "What are we up to, sweetheart?"
River - "Fixing your Bible."
Shepherd Book - "I--uh-- What?"
River - "Bible's broken. Contradictions, faulty logistics--it doesn't make sense..."
Shepherd Book - "No, no, you can't..."
River - "So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden -- eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there... eleven, important number, prime number, one goes into the house of eleven eleven times but always comes out one--"
Shepherd Book - "River, just take it easy. You shouldn't-- "
River - "Noah's Ark is a problem-- We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon-- Only way to fit five-thousand species of mammal on the same boat- "
Shepherd Book - "Gimme that!... River! You don't fix the Bible!"
River - "It's broken. It doesn't make sense."
Shepherd Book - "It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about 'faith'. You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you."
-
Aldo
God did take every living animal...
The reason dinosaurs died was because he DID NOT WANT THEM TO LIVE.... It was to become a threat to man kind.. After the flood was over, the bible says hat God put the Fear of Man into all animals... If he had put that in dinosaurs, you wouldnt be alive...
There is much evidence of the flood actually coming... God didnt flip his fingers because he has givin all of us a free will... To just take you would go against is policy, so to speak....
You asked was the water compressed... No crap it was compressed... The waterabove the earth was lingering in the atmosphere... Its totally possible because all the ceans and rivers and wells were full for Adam and Eve to drink out of... It was rain just like todays rain, except larger amounts had come down..
I gotta go...
This is a preface..
I will have the full paper later this afternoon
-
As for my age, you really want me to rip my birth certificate out?
God you people are so daring...
-
From a purely curious point of view...
Did the ark take termites aboard?
-
I will have the full paper later this afternoon
I'll leave it to Aldo to rebutt all the comments you just made because I certainly don't want to spoil his fun but I hope there is more logic in this full paper than what you just wrote. There wasn't a single logical rebuttal to any of Aldo's points in there.
-
Aldo
God did take every living animal...
The reason dinosaurs died was because he DID NOT WANT THEM TO LIVE.... It was to become a threat to man kind.. After the flood was over, the bible says hat God put the Fear of Man into all animals... If he had put that in dinosaurs, you wouldnt be alive...
There is much evidence of the flood actually coming... God didnt flip his fingers because he has givin all of us a free will... To just take you would go against is policy, so to speak....
You asked was the water compressed... No crap it was compressed... The waterabove the earth was lingering in the atmosphere... Its totally possible because all the ceans and rivers and wells were full for Adam and Eve to drink out of... It was rain just like todays rain, except larger amounts had come down..
I gotta go...
This is a preface..
I will have the full paper later this afternoon
Oh dear.
Firslty, animals don't have the fear of man. That's why carnivores like sharks, alligators, cheetahs, etc attack man (because we're fragile & slow prey compared to, say, a gazelle). Would you go out on a walk, unarmed, in the middle of the African plains?
The water was not lingering in the atmosphere. It is impossible for it linger in the atmosphere, I already pointed out why with respect to atmospheric pressure changes and the requirement for that vapour to be superheated. Do you know how much water is actually within the average raincloud? About 1 cup. Look at mist/fog and how dense it is (or rather, is not); that's nothing more that a low-level cloud.
Water is also highly incompressible (when it is a vapour, such as cloud, molecules are widely spaced. When it is compressed, it becomes 'solid' liquid; liquid water is highly incompressible and hence is used as part of - for example - g-cushioning on chairs). Having that amount of water 'compressed' up there would defy gravity (and it'd be liquid). And, again, it'd have massive climatological effects due to the impact upon sunlight reaching the earth.
Dinosaurs did not exist at the same time as man. Basic geology (the sediment layers used to date remains) show as much (lets not forget a lot of this sediment/strata dating was created by ardent creationists prior to Darwins revelations). Also, this wouldn;t account for the animals that were extinct before the dinosaurs - unless you're seriously suggesting mankind was wandering around during the pre-cambrian, and God somehow just kept creating loads and loads of hostile animals (oops, eh), until having a flood.
It's interesting how you use free will ifor a general excuse, but cannot comprehend the possibility of having free thought. If you're going 'God took every living animal', then doesn't that mean the whole ark thing is rubbish? Because there's no need for an ark, or free will, or God to even tell Noah if he's just going to scoop up everything anyways. In fact, why have the flood? Just remove the big nasty dinosaurs!
And, well, there's loads of inaccuracies here. For example, one well does not make 40 feet of global water coverage, nor explain why that water was never seen before or since. Have you ever even considered taking a rational look at the known facts here?
Tell you what, point me to 'much evidence'. Because a precursory examination of ancient civillisation and geological records, not to mention the biodiversity and animal territory ranges, of the world today makes it blatantly obvious that there was no global flood. Unless you care to explain how Egypt was miraculously spared from even noticing a flood?
-
God did take every living animal...
How many species were there then, exactly? The same number we have today plus the ones made extinct since the flood?
Simply put, if you say yes, the boat was about 2.000 times the size of the Titanic, which I call a pretty damn impressive feat of engineering for just Noah and his wife to have undertaken. Hats off to them.
But if you say no, then you basically acknowlege evolution. Not nessecarily meaning that a god of your choosing didn't start it all in the first place and simply left evolution in as a means to cut down on his workload. But if he did have all the species on the boat back then, and there are more species now than could have fit on his boat, then where did the rest come from if not from evolution?
So you see, there are some pretty good reasons not to take the bible literally. Because if you do, you will quickly find that there are multiple instances where the world of today could simply not exist if things happened as described. Humanity, for one, would have died out after Cain and Abel, given that there were no women around except for their own mother.
But even if you accept all of it at face value (blissfully ignoring the things that would lead to the world not existing, of course) you can still accept evolution. Nothing in the bible rules it out. It basically says god created everything, but nowhere does it say he forces everything to remain static without ever changing. So evolution is actually quite compatible with the bible, a fact which as many others have already mentioned has in fact been acknowledged by the likes of the Vatican.
-
“The Church joyfully accepts the real conquests of human knowledge.” (the Pope)
EDIT; it occurs to me that this, er, report, will come just as I'm at work tomorrow. Tsch. Still, going by evidence so far it'll be claptrap based on random assertions with no attempt made at scientific or even cursory common sense examination.
-
The thing about evolution being a theory no big deal. It's still a theory that the moon goes round the Earth, despite the fact we've gone up there and watched it do it. Why is it still a theory? Because scientists don't like to say 'this is undeniable fact' . Observable items of data have suggested that the Moon goes round the Earth, and is in the general habit of doing so, but no-one is going to say that it is a 'unchangeable limit of knowledge' that the moon goes round the Earth, it is merely doing so currently, because if the moon then plummets into the Earth, the scientists' career would be ruined. Oh, and we'd all be dead.
And you hit real theory the moment you start asking the question 'Why does the moon go round the Earth?' That's what theory does, it challenges itself constantly, deliberately stress tests itself and tries to find errors, it is that constant testing to breaking point which makes science, to my mind, far more likely to be right, because it tries to accept the possibility that it could be wrong. Admittedly Creationism is a bad example for getting scientists to admit that it does fall within the phase space of possibility, but, if you taught science that way, you'd have to teach every phase space of possibility, which is literally hundreds of thousands of theories. Science is a matter of asking the questions 'Why?' and 'How?' These are two questions that a lot of people don't ask enough of their own beliefs.
-
Aldo
God did take every living animal...
The reason dinosaurs died was because he DID NOT WANT THEM TO LIVE.... It was to become a threat to man kind.. After the flood was over, the bible says hat God put the Fear of Man into all animals... If he had put that in dinosaurs, you wouldnt be alive...
So kiddo who created other living organisms? Did Satan created deadly the viruses and bacteria or you think GOD did?
I do not care what you believe. Please just stop the nonsense explanation as for how and why things happened when you can not even prove GOD is the one holding responsible.
-
You asked was the water compressed... No crap it was compressed... The waterabove the earth was lingering in the atmosphere... Its totally possible because all the ceans and rivers and wells were full for Adam and Eve to drink out of... It was rain just like todays rain, except larger amounts had come down..
On a similar point, notice how the lifespan of everyone before the flood is significantly higher than the lifespans of those after the flood. This was not "just rain, but in larger amounts" that fell during this flood; it apparently was enough to cause factors that would have resulted in a shortage of human lifespan in the Middle East (skin cancer resulting from increased sun exposure, par exampla).
-
You asked was the water compressed... No crap it was compressed... The waterabove the earth was lingering in the atmosphere... Its totally possible because all the ceans and rivers and wells were full for Adam and Eve to drink out of... It was rain just like todays rain, except larger amounts had come down..
On a similar point, notice how the lifespan of everyone before the flood is significantly higher than the lifespans of those after the flood. This was not "just rain, but in larger amounts" that fell during this flood; it apparently was enough to cause factors that would have resulted in a shortage of human lifespan in the Middle East (skin cancer resulting from increased sun exposure, par exampla).
I have a feeling, also, that that much water wouldn't simply 'vanish' post-flood; you are talking about an amount sufficient to increase the globes diameter by over 40 feet (flood waters 20 feet deep at the highest mountain) and AFAIK there is no possible explanation for such a gargantuan amount of water popping in and out of existence. Beyond His Noodly Appendage, of course. Albeit this thread is going a bit OT vis-a-vis Noahs Ark anyways, as it's one of the easiest literal interpreations to debunk, alongside the flat circular earth fixed in space.
-
Evolution only interferes with young Earth creationism. In other words those people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old cause the bible says so
Heh, not even the bible says so. It's Anglican bisshop Usher who said so based on what he read in the bible (the "begats"). But there's no date in the book. So Usher was making an interpretation, and one that is used plenty by these bible-literalists (which apparently, they only are when it suits them)
oh, and maybe everyone should read this
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91
It's about the true effects of ID/creationism: namely trying to destroy (yes, destroy) science-education and science one step at a time. After all, if you want to kill of evolution you'll need to do more than just take out the biology side of it, you'll need to deal with geology too (and many other disciplines including nuclear physics, paleontology, medicine, etc.)
-
God did take every living animal...
The reason dinosaurs died was because he DID NOT WANT THEM TO LIVE.... It was to become a threat to man kind.. After the flood was over, the bible says hat God put the Fear of Man into all animals... If he had put that in dinosaurs, you wouldnt be alive...
Tell me, please, how a psittacosaurus or a protoceratops coul;d be any more dangerous to man than a pig or a cow.
-
I do not have time to reply to what has been said, ATM. Im buzy tonight. All i have time for is this.
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the much awaited report of mine:
EVOLUTION
Many people today want to know how the world and everything began. None of us today was there when it happened so we rely on beliefs and science to tell us how the world began. Both sides (Creationists and Evolutionists) cannot be completely proven or disproven, so in that light, I will discuss the main points of controversy of both sides and explain both points of view in hopes to give you a better understanding of each side.
In short, Evolution is the belief that all living beings originated from earlier species over millions of years, and the world was created with a mass explosion of built-up energy. Evolution also believes that man came from apes, and other earlier species before that.
Creationism, on the other hand believes in a higher being (God) who created the world, and all its life forms (as they are) in 6 days (According to Genesis). Creationism believes that God created man just the way we are; we did not ‘evolve’ from earlier species.
Linus Pauling, grouped evidences of evolution in four main categories. The first being, fossil records of changes in earlier species. Second, the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms. Third, geographic distribution of related species. And last, the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over several generations.
1) Fossil Records. Summary- Fossil and animal remains found in sediment are claimed to show changes in the creatures, through time. Extinct species, which are similar to major groups of organisms, are claimed to be proof that species can evolve. The fossil record of similar species is incomplete.
2) Chemical and Anatomical Similarities. Summary- All things are similar in their basic anatomic structure’s. All living things are similar in that their cells can create complex structures, and only a few elements are needed. Many common proteins are made out of a few basic elements (Pauling says 6 of 92 common elements). Plants and animals inherit genes, as well as its characteristics, from their parent. Pauling claims most plant like living things inherit the energy needed for growth from sunlight, and as I said before, many of them are similar way. Pauling says, "This is the case with the vertebrates, which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humorous, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor."1 (Linus Pauling)
3) Geographic Distribution of Related Species. Summary- Each area geographically has its own animal communities, all unique. Australia and other islands do not have inland animals, as they have their own indigenous species. Land mammals are non existent in the islands, yet they have marsupials . Pauling says, "Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world."1(Linus Pauling)
4) Genetic Changes Thorough Generations. Summary - Thousands of years ago, at several key times, the earth’s environments changed drastically. When the changes became intolerable to the species and inhabitants of the time, a widespread death occurred. The few survivors became tolerant of the change, immune so to speak, and their offspring were also. So the slow evolution and changes of the species is supposed to occur in this pattern. This is called "Natural Selection". Species that grow and reproduce many offspring in a short time evolve faster. They can adapt and develop immune quickly because of the faster rates they grow and breed. In the process of a species evolving, it eventually derives into several similar species. Man and apes are very similar in appearance and bone structure, so man is believed to have come from apes and their ancestors. Their similarities mean that they all came from the same ancestor canine species.
WHERE IT ALL STARTED.
Evolution
A man named Charles Darwin, started the theory of evolution .4 (Bruno J. Leone) He was a geologist on a ship that explored to find fossils of extinct species and study local species. As his journey progressed he began to doubt creation. The extinct species he found was similar to the existing species that was in the local areas; where he found the fossils. So, he came to believe that the species today came from extinct species. As the newer species adapted to the environment and changed throughout the generations, they became what we see today. He seemed to imply that someone or something created the first living being, which all the other living beings developed from.5 (Bruno J. Leone) At first, he only received partial support, but eventually, he gained massive support.
Creationism
Creationism comes from the belief of Christians, in the words of the Bible. The bible is said to be Gods own words, and it is Him that created the universe. Christians believe that God created the world in 6 days and all the life forms just as they are today. The bible is a book of many books combined into one. The book that contains the words about creation is called Genesis. This book was written by a man named Moses, and passed on through the generations. Moses did not witness the creation, but this knowledge of it was given to him by God himself, to write down for his descendants. Christians believe this around the world.
As Evolutionists interpret the main theory of Evolution differently in the fine points, Christians, as do all people, do the same. I won’t be getting into all the different beliefs but I’ll get into some of them.
THE START OF THE UNIVERSE.
Evolutionists believe that there was nothing in space. All matter and energy, over the millions of years eventually built up at an immense temperature and density, and in a big bang, exploded creating an anomaly. That release of energy and matter created the universe or, the elements or cells that created the universe or the matter thereof. Life emerged from non-living material and means.
Creationists believe that there was nothing but God (and space, nothingness). God, decided to, and created the universe, in six days. In those six days he also created man, plants, and animals, and everything else. He created Adam and Eve, the first male and female, from which we are all descendants. This is all found in the Bible, in the Genesis book.
SIX DAYS - HOW LONG IS A DAY? THE CREATIONIST VIEW.
Creationist believe the world was created in six days as the bible said. However, within this position there are a wide range of opinions on how long this six days actually was. Some say creation was in six 24-hour days, others argue whether it was more or less than 24-hours. Some say it was thousands of years before God created the sun and stars to regulate how long was a day.
Creationists generally believe that man has been on this earth approximately 6,000 years since creation. They present a wide range of evidences to support this belief beyond simple blind faith.
One example might be food for dinosaurs. The amount of vegetation needed to support one large dinosaur is estimated to be three and a half tons of vegetation per day. However, in the places where they find dinosaur fossils, they do not find plant fossils to serve as food for the large masses of dying and repopulating species.
The obvious design of cell structure, and of the human body itself is so complex that it could not develop by chance. Life created by chance by non-living material is radically impossible.
As John K. G. Kramer says in his section of "In Six Days", "Secondly, numerous pieces of evidence fit a young earth. To mention a few: The historical records, the population growth, the helium content in this world, the missing neutrinos from the sun, the oscillation period of the sun, the decline of the earth’s magnetic field, the limited number of supernovas, radioactive halos, the mitochondria DNA pointing to one mother, and the increase in genetic diseases, etc."8 (John F. Ashton)
WHY DID WE NOT EVOLVE? CREATIONIST VIEW.
A common factor in DNA, cells, and all living things, is orderliness and design. You can’t have design without a designer. Orderliness tells of intelligence to make order, some other being or force out there; God. DNA carries the information necessary to tell the cell how to duplicate, feed, and how to cooperate with other cells. All in all, to become a complex living being. There is no way that could ever occur by chance. Cells and DNA are extremely complex and orderly, as a certain cell is used for a certain task. And the DNA cell tells which cells to be what and do what, and passes the necessary information to each cell in full, become a living organism. There is no order in chance, or luck. This order, or design, points to a creator, God.
NATURAL SELECTION AND MUTATIONS.
Evolutionists believe that when the big bang occurred it also created ameba’s, which over millions of years mutated into living animals. Those animal species eventually faced catastrophes and intolerable climate changes, which led to mass extermination and few survivors. Those survivors either adapted and lived, or became immune to the event and they developed slightly changed characteristics. Those characteristic traits were passed down, to their descendants, which were immune from birth to the event that killed a lot of the pervious species.
This is the theory of Natural Selection. It may also be known as survival of the fittest. A species either died off, or a new species came from them. Traits and characteristics changed and allowed the current generations to adapt and survive. Species sometime derived into two species, instead of just one. So that’s how the many different species of animals today came to be. They kept mutating into what we see today. Foxes and Dogs and Wolfs all are similar species of the Canine Family. From the similarities, they say that they all came from the same ancient ancestor.
Creationists believe that God created all animals and living things at Creation. Though they may have changed since God created the universe, they didn’t change by natural selection or mutation, but changed within fixed limits. Not nearly as extreme as the Evolutionists believe. So the animals we see today are mainly how God created them at Creation.
MAN - APE OR NOT?
Evolutionists believe that by natural selection and mutation, over millions of years, man evolved from apes and apes from previous species. There was no special plan or design, just survial of the fittest. They believe also that the path of evolution of species is all by chance, that there is no guiding force. That the big bang and the creation of life from non-living material was chance and luck, same as the evolution of all species was.
Creationists believe God created man in one day, not over millions of years. Man today came from previous men who all are decendents of Adam and Eve, the first male and female. Some Christians believe that God made the universe and left it. Others believe he directs it, or directs the evolution of the universe.
FOSSILS MILLIONS OR THOUSANDS OF YEARS?
Evolutionists believe that the fossils are an accumulation of years of dead animals and extinct species spanning a great amount of time (millions of years). These are found through several layers of the earth’s crust. Though there are gaps in the fossil record, it is to be expected, as it is a natural and hard process for a fossil to be created by nature. In order for a fossil to be produced, the dead carcass has to first be buried quickly, and then several layers of sediment and earth has to cover it. Then it lies in wait forming the fossil, until someone finds it and uncovers it. Wind and rain and other natural forces can destroy fossils when exposed and uncovered, so it reduces the number of fossils we are able to find.
Creationists believe that at a time when man and animals were many in number God caused the Noachian Flood, also called The Great Flood, to happen. Sonder says, "Perhaps the Flood had been caused by a sudden shift of the Earth’s axis that had spewed up massive amounts of underground water. First, smaller animals had been swept away, and they had settled into the mud according to their specific gravity, or, roughly, their weight. Fish had died and floated to the water’s surface. Larger animals and humans ran to hilltops and mountain tops to escape the flood, but finally it reached them. They drowned and where covered with sediment in the years that followed. In other words, the fossils in the strata were not the remains of organisms that lived at different times. All had perished together in the Great Flood." 6 (Ben Sonder)
This explains how fossils got to be at different levels of the earth’s crust. The flood, which mass moved a massive amount of dirt, to account for the many layers of crust over the fossils, is why many species are extinct today. This is not the cause of natural selection, or because they were a weak species or died off due to catastrophes; but if God created the world only a few thousand years ago, the fossils could not possibly be millions of years old.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. This group, which emerged in recent years, believes that there is no God or creator. They believe also that, the universe did not happen by chance, and evolution did not happen by natural selection (chance). They believe, that the complexity of a living being, of all the cells, and the path in which evolution took, did not happen by chance. In theory, an intelligent force designed it that way, and sort of guided it along. Once again, not God, but an intelligent force. Some claim this is ‘creation science’ in disguise, and that it’s just another attempt to discredit evolution and be pro-creationist. According to Dwain L. Ford, in his section in the book "In Six Days", "Evidence for intelligent design is widespread in nature. For example:
A) The motorized rotating flagellum of some bacteria.
B) Blood clotting and its control.
C) The high degree of organization within a typical cell.
D) Cell division and its control.
E) The system for protein synthesis.
F) The human eye.
G) The respiratory chain based in the highly organized mitochondria.
H) The biosynthetic pathway in which acetyl CoA is the key compound." 7 (John F. Ashton)
CONCLUSION
Ben Sonder summarizes the main points of each position in his book as follows 3 (Ben Sonder) ,
"The Creationist Position
1. The universe, energy, and life were created from nothing.
2. Mutation and natural selection could not by themselves have brought about the development of all living things from a single organism.
3. The originally created kinds of plants and animals may have changed, but only within fixed limits.
4. Man and apes have separate ancestries.
5. The Earth’s geology can be explained by Catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood.
6. The Earth and living kinds came into existence recently.
The Evolutionist Position
1. Through naturalistic processes, the universe emerged from disordered matter and life emerged from non-life.
2. Mutation and natural selection are sufficient to explain the development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds.
3. Present living kinds emerged from simple earlier kinds by mutation and natural selection.
4. Man emerged form a common ancestor with apes.
5. The earth’s geology and the evolutionary sequence can be explained by uniformitarianism. *
6. The earth came into existence several billion years ago and life came into existence somewhat later.
*Note: uniformitarianism is a doctrine stating that modern geological processes are sufficient to account for all geological changes in the past."
Though my personal beliefs say that Evolutionism is not true, everyone is entitled to their opinion. They do have some facts, though they may be flawed in some form. They have fossils but the dating is flawed. Either way you have to decide for yourself, weather you will believe in Creationism or Evolutionism. As I said at the beginning, you can’t totally prove or disprove either side; so, it comes down to if you believe in God or chance.
WORKS CITED
Books & Sites quoted from:
1) Linus Pauling, http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
2) An Opposing Viewpoints Series, Bruno J. Leone, Book Editor. Daniel Leone, Publisher. Bonnie Szumski. Editoral Director. Scott Barbour, Managing Editor. "Creationism Vs. Evolution" (San Diego CA, Greenhaven Press, Inc. 2002)
3) Ben Sonder, "Evolutionism and Creationism" (Franklin Watts a division of Grolier Publishing Co. Inc. 1999), pg. 100,101.
4) Ibid., pg. 9.
5) Ibid., pg. 14.
6) Ibid., pg. 40.
7) In Six Days, Edited by John F. Ashton. First reference from page 140.
8) Ibid., pg 53. By John K. G. Kramer, who is a research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. He holds a B. S. (hons) from the university of manitoba, and M. S. In biochemistry from the University of Manitoba, a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Minnesota and completed three years of post-doctoral studies as a Hormel fellow at the Hormel Institute and as a NRC fellow at the University of Ottawa.
Books looked in, but not quoted:
Bones of Contention: A creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, by Marvin L. Lubenow
Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, Edited by Robert T. Pennock
-
Where to begin?..... :D
The obvious design of cell structure, and of the human body itself is so complex that it could not develop by chance. Life created by chance by non-living material is radically impossible.
MAJOR misunderstanding of evolution here. Evolution is not random. Mutation is random. Natural selection is the very antithesis of randomness. With this one sentence you have proved you don't understand evolution. Of course complex machinery like the human body can't arise by chance. No one said it could. You've completely failed to understand evolutionary theory if you think it is random chance. It is like me saying that I understand Christianity and then starting with "When Vishnu created the world...."
As John K. G. Kramer says in his section of "In Six Days", "Secondly, numerous pieces of evidence fit a young earth. To mention a few: The historical records, the population growth, the helium content in this world, the missing neutrinos from the sun, the oscillation period of the sun, the decline of the earth’s magnetic field, the limited number of supernovas, radioactive halos, the mitochondria DNA pointing to one mother, and the increase in genetic diseases, etc."8 (John F. Ashton)
You'd better explain those in more detail. Wikipedia is down and I can't point out the flaws in those arguments from nothing more than a title.
A common factor in DNA, cells, and all living things, is orderliness and design. You can’t have design without a designer.
Patent nonsense. Crystals show a high degree of order without the need for a designer. Are you claiming that God designs ever single snowflake? Your argument is fallacious. You must prove that a designer is needed before you can claim this. So far you have not done this.
DNA carries the information necessary to tell the cell how to duplicate, feed, and how to cooperate with other cells. All in all, to become a complex living being. There is no way that could ever occur by chance. Cells and DNA are extremely complex and orderly, as a certain cell is used for a certain task. And the DNA cell tells which cells to be what and do what, and passes the necessary information to each cell in full, become a living organism.
Ignores the fact that DNA could have arisen from simpler self replicating molecules. The smallest of these are much much simpler than DNA or RNA. Certainly simple enough to have arisen by other methods. DNA may have simply usurped the place of these simpler molecules.
Evolutionists believe that when the big bang occurred it also created ameba’s
Complete and utter nonsense. They believe nothing of the kind.
Those animal species eventually faced catastrophes and intolerable climate changes, which led to mass extermination and few survivors. Those survivors either adapted and lived, or became immune to the event and they developed slightly changed characteristics. Those characteristic traits were passed down, to their descendants, which were immune from birth to the event that killed a lot of the pervious species.
Wrong yet again. Natural Selection is an ongoing process and does not require catastrophies to come into effect. This is a huge misunderstanding of what Natural Selection is.
This is the theory of Natural Selection. It may also be known as survival of the fittest. A species either died off, or a new species came from them.
Gross simplification. Natural selection occurs at the level of the individual not at the level of the species. It is hard to tell if this is just an oversimplicifcation or another misunderstanding.
Creationists believe that at a time when man and animals were many in number God caused the Noachian Flood, also called The Great Flood, to happen. Sonder says, "Perhaps the Flood had been caused by a sudden shift of the Earth’s axis that had spewed up massive amounts of underground water. First, smaller animals had been swept away, and they had settled into the mud according to their specific gravity, or, roughly, their weight. Fish had died and floated to the water’s surface. Larger animals and humans ran to hilltops and mountain tops to escape the flood, but finally it reached them. They drowned and where covered with sediment in the years that followed. In other words, the fossils in the strata were not the remains of organisms that lived at different times. All had perished together in the Great Flood."
Doesn't make sense at all. I think Aldo has already sufficiently pointed out the flaws in the possibility of a great flood in the first place so I won't restate his comments
if God created the world only a few thousand years ago, the fossils could not possibly be millions of years old.
Radiocarbon dating easily proves that those fossils are not only thousands of years old. There is simply too little carbon 14 present for them to be that young.
A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. This group, which emerged in recent years, believes that there is no God or creator.
Wrong. The ID people are predominantly christian.
They believe also that, the universe did not happen by chance, and evolution did not happen by natural selection (chance). They believe, that the complexity of a living being, of all the cells, and the path in which evolution took, did not happen by chance. In theory, an intelligent force designed it that way, and sort of guided it along. Once again, not God, but an intelligent force.
Wrong yet again. Most ID'ers do believe it's God. They simply don't say that much when trying to discredit evolution using ID. If you want to ignore ID completely in this debate I'm more than happy to ignore them too but at least get what they say correct in the first place.
According to Dwain L. Ford, in his section in the book "In Six Days", "Evidence for intelligent design is widespread in nature. For example:
A) The motorized rotating flagellum of some bacteria.
B) Blood clotting and its control.
C) The high degree of organization within a typical cell.
D) Cell division and its control.
E) The system for protein synthesis.
F) The human eye.
G) The respiratory chain based in the highly organized mitochondria.
H) The biosynthetic pathway in which acetyl CoA is the key compound."
All of these can be refuted but seeing as how you're saying that ID is rubbish I'm not going to waste my time refuting stuff which you appear to think is bollocks anyway.
Though my personal beliefs say that Evolutionism is not true, everyone is entitled to their opinion. They do have some facts, though they may be flawed in some form. They have fossils but the dating is flawed. Either way you have to decide for yourself, weather you will believe in Creationism or Evolutionism. As I said at the beginning, you can’t totally prove or disprove either side; so, it comes down to if you believe in God or chance.
As I stated would be the case your conclusions are formed on very big misconceptions of what evolution actually is. You're entitled to your opinion but if you have formed that opinion on bad data then it is worthless.
-
Creationists believe that at a time when man and animals were many in number God caused the Noachian Flood, also called The Great Flood, to happen. Sonder says, "Perhaps the Flood had been caused by a sudden shift of the Earth’s axis that had spewed up massive amounts of underground water. First, smaller animals had been swept away, and they had settled into the mud according to their specific gravity, or, roughly, their weight. Fish had died and floated to the water’s surface. Larger animals and humans ran to hilltops and mountain tops to escape the flood, but finally it reached them. They drowned and where covered with sediment in the years that followed. In other words, the fossils in the strata were not the remains of organisms that lived at different times. All had perished together in the Great Flood." 6 (Ben Sonder)
Foolish, that doesnt even attempt to accounr for different groupings of fossils being in different places, if that were true they would all be mish-mash about.
This explains how fossils got to be at different levels of the earth’s crust. The flood, which mass moved a massive amount of dirt, to account for the many layers of crust over the fossils, is why many species are extinct today. This is not the cause of natural selection, or because they were a weak species or died off due to catastrophes; but if God created the world only a few thousand years ago, the fossils could not possibly be millions of years old.
You are not even talking about the absolute ages of the fossils, how can you make a conclusion on it?
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. This group, which emerged in recent years, believes that there is no God or creator. They believe also that, the universe did not happen by chance, and evolution did not happen by natural selection (chance). They believe, that the complexity of a living being, of all the cells, and the path in which evolution took, did not happen by chance. In theory, an intelligent force designed it that way, and sort of guided it along. Once again, not God, but an intelligent force. Some claim this is ‘creation science’ in disguise, and that it’s just another attempt to discredit evolution and be pro-creationist. According to Dwain L. Ford, in his section in the book "In Six Days", "Evidence for intelligent design is widespread in nature. For example:
A) The motorized rotating flagellum of some bacteria.
B) Blood clotting and its control.
C) The high degree of organization within a typical cell.
D) Cell division and its control.
E) The system for protein synthesis.
F) The human eye.
G) The respiratory chain based in the highly organized mitochondria.
H) The biosynthetic pathway in which acetyl CoA is the key compound." 7 (John F. Ashton)
These are just a strewn together list of facts that you are posturing as evidence for ID. These dont show any evidence for ID in any way, in fact, most of them support evolution.
-
That post is so loaded with errors regarding evolution that it took me three tries to actually get through it. Anyway, lets start at the beginning shall we? I'll leave picking the creationist arguments apart to someone else, and just focus on the factual errors regarding evolution. Well ok, I might make a few exceptions.
Evolutionists believe that there was nothing in space. All matter and energy, over the millions of years eventually built up at an immense temperature and density, and in a big bang, exploded creating an anomaly. That release of energy and matter created the universe or, the elements or cells that created the universe or the matter thereof. Life emerged from non-living material and means.
The point being? This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The big bang theory is about how the early universe was created, and may or may not be right. There are several alternative theories about. Earth, the Sun and the other planets however did not spontaneously create itself out of pure energy, they formed from the slow consolitation of matter into larger and larger clumps. There is little disagreement over this, as it's a process continually happening throughout the galaxy and is readily observable with powerful telescopes. But regardless of, wrong theory.
Oh, and incidentally, the fact that such formation of far away stars is observable in telescopes, combined with the known and proven speed of light, completely invalidates any young earth (well, young universe, but since the 'world' goes beyond just earth it applies) arguments that might rear their heads later. It is simple: We know stuff existed millions of years ago. We can, quite literally, see it right before our eyes. So no 'nothing existed prior to 10.000 BC', please. I know noone has claimed that yet, but consider that a preemptive strike I guess. Actually wait a sec...
Creationists generally believe that man has been on this earth approximately 6,000 years since creation.
Guess you did claim it. That would be the exception I mentioned I guess, just couldn't let that one stand.
Evolutionists believe that when the big bang occurred it also created ameba’s, which over millions of years mutated into living animals. Those animal species eventually faced catastrophes and intolerable climate changes, which led to mass extermination and few survivors. Those survivors either adapted and lived, or became immune to the event and they developed slightly changed characteristics. Those characteristic traits were passed down, to their descendants, which were immune from birth to the event that killed a lot of the pervious species.
Err, no. Just no. Big bang and evolution are two entirely seperate theories. They have nothing to do with each other, at all. Evolution doesn't come in until we already have a fully formed planet with at least some life on it. As far as the theory of evolution cares, god could have taken care of all the initial world-building and life-seeding.
Evolutionists believe that by natural selection and mutation, over millions of years, man evolved from apes and apes from previous species. There was no special plan or design, just survial of the fittest. They believe also that the path of evolution of species is all by chance, that there is no guiding force. That the big bang and the creation of life from non-living material was chance and luck, same as the evolution of all species was.
Just how many times, on this thread alone, has it been pointed out that evolution is not considered random, not chance? Life itself, perhaps, but evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself. And again, you just had to throw the big bang in there didn't you? Please, just get that one out of your head, seems just one theory is enough of a problem to cope with, no reason to go to war with several.
All this just goes to show that you do, indeed, not understand the theory of evolution.
[Edit] Bleh, I type too slow :p Oh well....
-
You asked was the water compressed... No crap it was compressed... The waterabove the earth was lingering in the atmosphere... Its totally possible because all the ceans and rivers and wells were full for Adam and Eve to drink out of... It was rain just like todays rain, except larger amounts had come down..
On a similar point, notice how the lifespan of everyone before the flood is significantly higher than the lifespans of those after the flood. This was not "just rain, but in larger amounts" that fell during this flood; it apparently was enough to cause factors that would have resulted in a shortage of human lifespan in the Middle East (skin cancer resulting from increased sun exposure, par exampla).
That's circular logic. There's no evidence outside of the bible that the human lifespan was ever longer than it is today (in fact, most actual historical records and, farther back, archeological records indicate that the human lifespan was much shorter) and so that Biblical reference cannot be used to justify another biblical reference.
Now, on to Charismatic's essay. This is going to get ugly fast.
I do not have time to reply to what has been said, ATM. Im buzy tonight. All i have time for is this.
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the much awaited report of mine:
EVOLUTION
Many people today want to know how the world and everything began. None of us today was there when it happened so we rely on beliefs and science to tell us how the world began. Both sides (Creationists and Evolutionists) cannot be completely proven or disproven, so in that light, I will discuss the main points of controversy of both sides and explain both points of view in hopes to give you a better understanding of each side.
In short, Evolution is the belief that all living beings originated from earlier species over millions of years, and the world was created with a mass explosion of built-up energy. Evolution also believes that man came from apes, and other earlier species before that.
Creationism, on the other hand believes in a higher being (God) who created the world, and all its life forms (as they are) in 6 days (According to Genesis). Creationism believes that God created man just the way we are; we did not ‘evolve’ from earlier species.
Linus Pauling, grouped evidences of evolution in four main categories. The first being, fossil records of changes in earlier species. Second, the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms. Third, geographic distribution of related species. And last, the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over several generations.
Overly general, and you've already begun to misrepresent evolutionary theory (among other things) but fine. I'll humor you. I'll get to the other issues eventually.
1) Fossil Records. Summary- Fossil and animal remains found in sediment are claimed to show changes in the creatures, through time. Extinct species, which are similar to major groups of organisms, are claimed to be proof that species can evolve. The fossil record of similar species is incomplete.
First of all, the incompleteness of the fossil record is not an indication of its inaccuracy as you seem to be implying. I don't know how many times I've seen this argument used (or at least implied) and it's completely wrong. Fossils are fragile and hard-to-form things, the conditions have to be literally perfect and that only happens in extremely rare cases. I don't know the exact numbers of how frequent fossilization occurs, but I do know that it's somewhere on the order of 1 in 1,000,000 if not much, much rarer. The fact that we have as many different species fossilized as we do is more an indication of change over time than the lack of every single transitional form is evidence that it didn't.
2) Chemical and Anatomical Similarities. Summary- All things are similar in their basic anatomic structure’s. All living things are similar in that their cells can create complex structures, and only a few elements are needed. Many common proteins are made out of a few basic elements (Pauling says 6 of 92 common elements). Plants and animals inherit genes, as well as its characteristics, from their parent. Pauling claims most plant like living things inherit the energy needed for growth from sunlight, and as I said before, many of them are similar way. Pauling says, "This is the case with the vertebrates, which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humorous, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor."1 (Linus Pauling)
Plants don't share the trait of growing from sunlight, they share the trait of using a specific chemical (chlorophil) to harnass light in the conversion of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen from lower-energy forms to higher-energy forms, also known as food (Sugars and complex carbohydrates, if you want to get technical). Plants actually act, on a cellular level, much like any other multicellular organism on the planet outside of the chloroplasts. This "category" also includes genetic evidence, which can quite easily show that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than to a lemur, or that fish and whales share very little in the way of common genetics. In fact, genetics can trace which organisms shared common ancestors more recently than others more easily than any other form of evidense. There's a wealth of informaton here that a library can't cover. That wealth of information all constitutes evidence to back up the theory, so none of the low-level similarities should be taken as the argument for evolution in and of themselves.
3) Geographic Distribution of Related Species. Summary- Each area geographically has its own animal communities, all unique. Australia and other islands do not have inland animals, as they have their own indigenous species. Land mammals are non existent in the islands, yet they have marsupials . Pauling says, "Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world."1(Linus Pauling)
Yes. This is a hard one for young-earthists and literalists to get past.
4) Genetic Changes Thorough Generations. Summary - Thousands of years ago, at several key times, the earth’s environments changed drastically. When the changes became intolerable to the species and inhabitants of the time, a widespread death occurred. The few survivors became tolerant of the change, immune so to speak, and their offspring were also. So the slow evolution and changes of the species is supposed to occur in this pattern. This is called "Natural Selection". Species that grow and reproduce many offspring in a short time evolve faster. They can adapt and develop immune quickly because of the faster rates they grow and breed. In the process of a species evolving, it eventually derives into several similar species. Man and apes are very similar in appearance and bone structure, so man is believed to have come from apes and their ancestors. Their similarities mean that they all came from the same ancestor canine species.
What you're talking about here isn't genetics, it's well, environmental selection. And it happens. That's what drove Darwin to write his theory in the first place - oh wait, I'll come to this later. And the timeframe is not thousands, but rather millions of years. No right-minded biologist would ever tell you than man and ape diverged within the last million years because (fossil record!) we actually have strong evidence of pre-humans long before then.
WHERE IT ALL STARTED.
Evolution
A man named Charles Darwin, started the theory of evolution .4 (Bruno J. Leone) He was a geologist on a ship that explored to find fossils of extinct species and study local species. As his journey progressed he began to doubt creation. The extinct species he found was similar to the existing species that was in the local areas; where he found the fossils. So, he came to believe that the species today came from extinct species. As the newer species adapted to the environment and changed throughout the generations, they became what we see today. He seemed to imply that someone or something created the first living being, which all the other living beings developed from.5 (Bruno J. Leone) At first, he only received partial support, but eventually, he gained massive support.
Hey, there we are! Darwin. First, Darwin was not on an expedition to collect samples of anything; he was sort of tagging along for the ride. The Beagle's mission was a mapping expedition undertaking early in the Napoleonic wars; a naval exercise more than a scientific one. Darwin was charged with recording everything he saw (really intended to be able to suppliment the map with information on regions' indigenous populations and resources) and only because he happened to have a solid knowledge of natural history was he able to make connections between species in other parts of the world. What really made him settle on natural selection and evolution though was that he saw things on Galapagos that he could not otherwise explain. Darwin himself was a Christian, and actually worried considerably both before publishing his works and later in life about what his discovery would mean to the church, but the evidence for evolution that he had seen on his journey was overwhelming.
Creationism
Creationism comes from the belief of Christians, in the words of the Bible. The bible is said to be Gods own words, and it is Him that created the universe. Christians believe that God created the world in 6 days and all the life forms just as they are today. The bible is a book of many books combined into one. The book that contains the words about creation is called Genesis. This book was written by a man named Moses, and passed on through the generations. Moses did not witness the creation, but this knowledge of it was given to him by God himself, to write down for his descendants. Christians believe this around the world.
As Evolutionists interpret the main theory of Evolution differently in the fine points, Christians, as do all people, do the same. I won’t be getting into all the different beliefs but I’ll get into some of them.
Actually, Creationism isn't religion-specific, it just means believing in the creation story of a religion. Christianity is just the major religion that is trying to exist in a highly advanced, scientifically conscious part of the world without conceeding to change though, and so is the most visible of all creationist sects. However, framing Creation in the context of faith I have no issue with, but that automatically puts it out of the ability to attack anything science.
For the rest of this response, I'll go ahead and stick with your assumption that we're talking about Judeochristian Creationism.
THE START OF THE UNIVERSE.
Evolutionists believe that there was nothing in space. All matter and energy, over the millions of years eventually built up at an immense temperature and density, and in a big bang, exploded creating an anomaly. That release of energy and matter created the universe or, the elements or cells that created the universe or the matter thereof. Life emerged from non-living material and means.
Big Bang theory is astrophysics, not evolution. And it's a theory that the entire universe - including what we know as space and time - all originated in an enormous release of energy. Where that energy came from is almost philosophical in nature; our universe literally didn't exist before it so there's no way of even describing it. Another point that seems to stem from the ID debate, unfortunately. That life naturally arose from non-living material starts to get there, but it's still not really evolution either. That said, big bang theory also has its share of evidence and support, and it's a theory that's constantly being refined to suit the latest data.
Creationists believe that there was nothing but God (and space, nothingness). God, decided to, and created the universe, in six days. In those six days he also created man, plants, and animals, and everything else. He created Adam and Eve, the first male and female, from which we are all descendants. This is all found in the Bible, in the Genesis book.
SIX DAYS - HOW LONG IS A DAY? THE CREATIONIST VIEW.
Creationist believe the world was created in six days as the bible said. However, within this position there are a wide range of opinions on how long this six days actually was. Some say creation was in six 24-hour days, others argue whether it was more or less than 24-hours. Some say it was thousands of years before God created the sun and stars to regulate how long was a day.
All well and good, except that you're using a single source - the Bible - with all of it's fallacies and relying on interpretation of that book for your entire world view.
Creationists generally believe that man has been on this earth approximately 6,000 years since creation. They present a wide range of evidences to support this belief beyond simple blind faith.
That's just the "evidence" we've been looking to see. I've yet to see a creationist produce any though, as the trouble is it doesn't exist. We've got records of civilizations over 6000 years old, and that hardly leaves much time for early man even in a biblical context.
One example might be food for dinosaurs. The amount of vegetation needed to support one large dinosaur is estimated to be three and a half tons of vegetation per day. However, in the places where they find dinosaur fossils, they do not find plant fossils to serve as food for the large masses of dying and repopulating species.
That's a lack of evidence, not evidence itself. The two should not be confused. There are so many logical fallacies in that statement that I almost don't know where to begin. Again with misunderstanding what a fossil actually is, for one thing, or with the assumption that soft plant material would even fossilize in the same way that bones do (they don't). Also, you're making the assumption that we know of dinosaurs and not their food, which is patently false; we do actually know some of the varieties of plant life that existed in that epoch despite the rarity of suitable plant fossils. Dinosaurs are not in any way, shape or form evidence of creation or any of the other rediculous tennents that it relies on (young-earth).
The obvious design of cell structure, and of the human body itself is so complex that it could not develop by chance. Life created by chance by non-living material is radically impossible.
That's the watchmaker analogy without coming out and saying it, which relies on faulty assumptions about what evolution is and what it means. I'll leave this one to kara or aldo, as they have a ready reply to the watchmaker analogy. Though you're using it here (?!) to justify the age of the earth. That's saying "the earth is 6000 years old, so these things couldn't have developed, so the earth must be 6000 years old." I shouldn't need to point out any more explicitly why that is incredibly stupid.
As John K. G. Kramer says in his section of "In Six Days", "Secondly, numerous pieces of evidence fit a young earth. To mention a few: The historical records, the population growth, the helium content in this world, the missing neutrinos from the sun, the oscillation period of the sun, the decline of the earth’s magnetic field, the limited number of supernovas, radioactive halos, the mitochondria DNA pointing to one mother, and the increase in genetic diseases, etc."8 (John F. Ashton)
None of which are both valid and actually offer any evidence that the earth is young. Historical records are inherently only as old as (recorded) civilization itself, and as I've already said some actually predate the supposed creation myth. The age of civilization and the age of earth itself are not one and the same. Some of those "pieces of evidence" also extrapolate datapoints incorrectly (strength of the magnetic field does not take into account magnetic cycles or reversals, which we have rock-solid evidence of having happened). Mitochondrial DNA spans KINGDOMS in some cases so while it does point to a common ancestor, it certainly doesn't point at one who was human. And the genetic diseases thing is a product of humanity being able to live with those now, rather than having the child die in infancy. Modern medicine is radically altering natural selection, so human history in the last 200 years isn't a good example of anything.
WHY DID WE NOT EVOLVE? CREATIONIST VIEW.
A common factor in DNA, cells, and all living things, is orderliness and design. You can’t have design without a designer. Orderliness tells of intelligence to make order, some other being or force out there; God. DNA carries the information necessary to tell the cell how to duplicate, feed, and how to cooperate with other cells. All in all, to become a complex living being. There is no way that could ever occur by chance. Cells and DNA are extremely complex and orderly, as a certain cell is used for a certain task. And the DNA cell tells which cells to be what and do what, and passes the necessary information to each cell in full, become a living organism. There is no order in chance, or luck. This order, or design, points to a creator, God.
Again, the watchmaker analogy. Again, I'll defer this one because it's been said so many times and because it will probably already have been said by the time this post is finished.
NATURAL SELECTION AND MUTATIONS.
Evolutionists believe that when the big bang occurred it also created ameba’s, which over millions of years mutated into living animals. Those animal species eventually faced catastrophes and intolerable climate changes, which led to mass extermination and few survivors. Those survivors either adapted and lived, or became immune to the event and they developed slightly changed characteristics. Those characteristic traits were passed down, to their descendants, which were immune from birth to the event that killed a lot of the pervious species.
Or that a change led to an advantage in competition for resources and which drove the segment of the population without the change into starvation. Or one that made reproduction more viable. There are literally as many things that natural selection favors as there are needs and dangers in the world for an organism.
This is the theory of Natural Selection. It may also be known as survival of the fittest. A species either died off, or a new species came from them. Traits and characteristics changed and allowed the current generations to adapt and survive. Species sometime derived into two species, instead of just one. So that’s how the many different species of animals today came to be. They kept mutating into what we see today. Foxes and Dogs and Wolfs all are similar species of the Canine Family. From the similarities, they say that they all came from the same ancient ancestor.
"They believe" that to be the case because it is the best explanation of the evidence. So yes.
Creationists believe that God created all animals and living things at Creation. Though they may have changed since God created the universe, they didn’t change by natural selection or mutation, but changed within fixed limits. Not nearly as extreme as the Evolutionists believe. So the animals we see today are mainly how God created them at Creation.
So how do you explain selective breeding? Or those pesky antibiotic-resistant antibacteria? Or for that matter the changes taking place in our own race?
MAN - APE OR NOT?
Evolutionists believe that by natural selection and mutation, over millions of years, man evolved from apes and apes from previous species. There was no special plan or design, just survial of the fittest. They believe also that the path of evolution of species is all by chance, that there is no guiding force. That the big bang and the creation of life from non-living material was chance and luck, same as the evolution of all species was.
No one has ever said that natural selection was luck, and the rest of natural history (origins of the universe, origins of life) are almost as philosophical as they are scientific.
Creationists believe God created man in one day, not over millions of years. Man today came from previous men who all are decendents of Adam and Eve, the first male and female. Some Christians believe that God made the universe and left it. Others believe he directs it, or directs the evolution of the universe.
Simple genetics rule that one out, unfortunately. A single male and single female of a complex, multicellular organism does not constitute a viable population and will not survive. Sorry.
FOSSILS MILLIONS OR THOUSANDS OF YEARS?
Evolutionists believe that the fossils are an accumulation of years of dead animals and extinct species spanning a great amount of time (millions of years). These are found through several layers of the earth’s crust. Though there are gaps in the fossil record, it is to be expected, as it is a natural and hard process for a fossil to be created by nature. In order for a fossil to be produced, the dead carcass has to first be buried quickly, and then several layers of sediment and earth has to cover it. Then it lies in wait forming the fossil, until someone finds it and uncovers it. Wind and rain and other natural forces can destroy fossils when exposed and uncovered, so it reduces the number of fossils we are able to find.
Creationists believe that at a time when man and animals were many in number God caused the Noachian Flood, also called The Great Flood, to happen. Sonder says, "Perhaps the Flood had been caused by a sudden shift of the Earth’s axis that had spewed up massive amounts of underground water. First, smaller animals had been swept away, and they had settled into the mud according to their specific gravity, or, roughly, their weight. Fish had died and floated to the water’s surface. Larger animals and humans ran to hilltops and mountain tops to escape the flood, but finally it reached them. They drowned and where covered with sediment in the years that followed. In other words, the fossils in the strata were not the remains of organisms that lived at different times. All had perished together in the Great Flood." 6 (Ben Sonder)
Ok, so you pseudo-quoted someone's definition of a fossil, which is great, but then follow it up with the garbage that is the ID explanation for how they got there. The way the rocks in which fossils are stratified are formed makes it categorically impossible for them to have all died at once. Sandstone doesn't form in a year.
This explains how fossils got to be at different levels of the earth’s crust. The flood, which mass moved a massive amount of dirt, to account for the many layers of crust over the fossils, is why many species are extinct today. This is not the cause of natural selection, or because they were a weak species or died off due to catastrophes; but if God created the world only a few thousand years ago, the fossils could not possibly be millions of years old.
Gasp! Could we have the circular reasoning again? "Fossils are not millions of years old, because they are on different levels of sediment, because god put them there 6000 years ago!"
Tell me then, why are they not evenly distributed across those layers? Why are older, more primitive fossils found deeper than newer ones consistantly?
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. This group, which emerged in recent years, believes that there is no God or creator. They believe also that, the universe did not happen by chance, and evolution did not happen by natural selection (chance). They believe, that the complexity of a living being, of all the cells, and the path in which evolution took, did not happen by chance. In theory, an intelligent force designed it that way, and sort of guided it along. Once again, not God, but an intelligent force. Some claim this is ‘creation science’ in disguise, and that it’s just another attempt to discredit evolution and be pro-creationist. According to Dwain L. Ford, in his section in the book "In Six Days", "Evidence for intelligent design is widespread in nature. For example:
A) The motorized rotating flagellum of some bacteria.
B) Blood clotting and its control.
C) The high degree of organization within a typical cell.
D) Cell division and its control.
E) The system for protein synthesis.
F) The human eye.
G) The respiratory chain based in the highly organized mitochondria.
H) The biosynthetic pathway in which acetyl CoA is the key compound." 7 (John F. Ashton)
And again, that's the watchmaker analogy. Complex structures can develop naturally so long as you're not expecting them to come all at once. But again, I'll let you have the full diatribe on that from someone else.
CONCLUSION
Ben Sonder summarizes the main points of each position in his book as follows 3 (Ben Sonder) ,
"The Creationist Position
1. The universe, energy, and life were created from nothing.
2. Mutation and natural selection could not by themselves have brought about the development of all living things from a single organism.
3. The originally created kinds of plants and animals may have changed, but only within fixed limits.
4. Man and apes have separate ancestries.
5. The Earth’s geology can be explained by Catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood.
6. The Earth and living kinds came into existence recently.
The Evolutionist Position
1. Through naturalistic processes, the universe emerged from disordered matter and life emerged from non-life.
2. Mutation and natural selection are sufficient to explain the development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds.
3. Present living kinds emerged from simple earlier kinds by mutation and natural selection.
4. Man emerged form a common ancestor with apes.
5. The earth’s geology and the evolutionary sequence can be explained by uniformitarianism. *
6. The earth came into existence several billion years ago and life came into existence somewhat later.
*Note: uniformitarianism is a doctrine stating that modern geological processes are sufficient to account for all geological changes in the past."
Though my personal beliefs say that Evolutionism is not true, everyone is entitled to their opinion. They do have some facts, though they may be flawed in some form. They have fossils but the dating is flawed. Either way you have to decide for yourself, weather you will believe in Creationism or Evolutionism. As I said at the beginning, you can’t totally prove or disprove either side; so, it comes down to if you believe in God or chance.
The problem is that what you've outlined is evolution vs. non-evolution (trying to pick holes in the evolutionary theory rather than putting something better forward). Most of the criticisms used are inaccurate, misinterpreted, or just flat-out wrong and it gets tiring even having to write that.
-
On a similar point, notice how the lifespan of everyone before the flood is significantly higher than the lifespans of those after the flood. This was not "just rain, but in larger amounts" that fell during this flood; it apparently was enough to cause factors that would have resulted in a shortage of human lifespan in the Middle East (skin cancer resulting from increased sun exposure, par exampla).
That's circular logic. There's no evidence outside of the bible that the human lifespan was ever longer than it is today (in fact, most actual historical records and, farther back, archeological records indicate that the human lifespan was much shorter) and so that Biblical reference cannot be used to justify another biblical reference.
I wasn't actually aiming at justifying anything; simply using a biblical reference to disprove ZmaN's belief in the "only slightly more rain than usual" argument.
-
SIX DAYS - HOW LONG IS A DAY? THE CREATIONIST VIEW.
Creationist believe the world was created in six days as the bible said. However, within this position there are a wide range of opinions on how long this six days actually was. Some say creation was in six 24-hour days, others argue whether it was more or less than 24-hours. Some say it was thousands of years before God created the sun and stars to regulate how long was a day.
i.e. the bible has to be very liberally re-interpreted to try and justify it in the face of scientific knowledge which disproves the literal interpretation.
One example might be food for dinosaurs. The amount of vegetation needed to support one large dinosaur is estimated to be three and a half tons of vegetation per day. However, in the places where they find dinosaur fossils, they do not find plant fossils to serve as food for the large masses of dying and repopulating species.
Utter tosh. Do you honestly expect a 1:1 fossilization record between soft plant matter and hard animal - bone - matter?
The obvious design of cell structure, and of the human body itself is so complex that it could not develop by chance. Life created by chance by non-living material is radically impossible.
Rubbish. Life did not create by blind chance; it created by random mutations selectected by environmental pressures (natural and sexual selection). Life created by chance by nonliving material is not impossible (it's actually outside the bounds of evolutionary theory); just see any research on abiogenesis for work done on this.
'Obvious design'? Complete idiocy - if you have a series of selection pressures that reward suitability for a purpose, then of course it will appear well designed. You're also making another fundamental flaw in assuming that life evolved the only way it could have, i.e. that the current form of life on earth is the only possible form, which is itself fundamentally unsound.
I'll try and come up with a simple analogy. We have a random mutation, positive or negative (the vast majority being the latter). If this mutation makes the animal survive longer, or reproduce more, then it is propagated through being a genetically dominant characteristic. So imagine, say, we have a machine that generates a sentence randomly, and we want that sentence to be a line from Hamlet. Now, what you're suggesting would be that each time that sentence is random - pure chance. That is unlikely. But, evolution works as if we generated that sentence, and kept letters that were correct for the next generation. And that, is not nearly so unlikely. In fact, write a simple program, and you'll find it does so in surprisingly few generations. It's not an exact analogy for evolution, but it illustrates the action of selection.
As John K. G. Kramer says in his section of "In Six Days", "Secondly, numerous pieces of evidence fit a young earth. To mention a few: The historical records, the population growth, the helium content in this world, the missing neutrinos from the sun, the oscillation period of the sun, the decline of the earth’s magnetic field, the limited number of supernovas, radioactive halos, the mitochondria DNA pointing to one mother, and the increase in genetic diseases, etc."8 (John F. Ashton)
Love how you don't define any of these.
Ok, I'll try and guess. Historical records and population growth are rather meaningless, because you give no way in which these aren't accounted for by known human development and the extinctions within the fossil record. I'll try to be brief, because there are a myriad of scientific faults to address here and my arms are tired.
Helium content; my understanding is that this is based on the helium-4 content in the atmosphere (created by regular radioactive decay), and the assumption it cannot escape from the atmosphere. Unfortunately (well, for you) both the polar wind and magnetic pole reversals contradict this. Specifically, the loss rate due to the polar wind has been recorded to be about the same as the accumulation rate used in the 'young earth' arguement.
Missing neutrinos; the 'shortage' has been provatively documented to be the result of neutrino oscillations (namely, collisions that convert neutrinos to different particles); this is proven by the SNO measurements of the sun, which detected neutrino particles (mau and one whose name I forget) only created by collisions (as documented in particle accelerator experiments). Additionally, all the suns current colour, luminosity & helioseismology characteristics are all grossly inconsistent with a young star.
Supernovas; the arguement is that there are not enough supernova remnants to account for anything other than a young galaxy (these calculations being a classic example of picking the result you want first). It's also based on wrong figures; the wrong estimation of both the rate of supernova and also the wrong calculations of which percentages of each stage supernovae should be visible. The calculations also used the theoretical lifetime of the supernova, not the observable lifetime, and ignores a vast number of events which hinder the ability to see a supernova (remanants that have faded away, merged with other remnants or become noise, supernovas that are hidden by other radiation sources, that not all of the sky has been surveyed to the same extent, the technological limitations restricting the ability to observe supernova, etc). i.e. it overestimates (badly) the number of expected supernova, and then ignores the restrictions upon finding them.
Magnetic field; utter claptrap. There is irrefutable evidence that the electromagnetic field periodically reverses, making any decay-based measurement meaningless. I believe this arguement also makes fundamentally unfounded assumptions that the internal magnetic field (vast majority of energy) of the earth shares the same fluctuations as the observable field.
Radioactive halos; An arguement that halos generated by polonium decay indicates a youn earth. Numerous studies have shown there is no good evidence for this (or that these halos - ring shaped discolouration - are due to decay atall). The research behind this also followed fundamentally unsound procedures, including selective use of evidence, faulty design, basic mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and arguementative style.
Mitochondria DNA; I believe this is the 'Mitochondrial Eve' hypothesis that claims one individual is the ancestor of all people and a recent ancestor, etc. Except that ME is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent; not the ancestor of all, ever. This does not actually rule out other ancestors, either; it only refers to the matrilineal line of inheritence. It's quite complicated, but consider this (which I won't bother to paraphrase);
[q]# Let us now see how the title of Mitochondrial Eve can change hands.
Consider an extremely prolific woman living today. She has many daughters and takes a vacation to a remote Carribean island for a week. During the same week a plague of a mutated Ebola virus sweeps the Earth and drastically decreases the fecundity of all living women. Not only that, the viral infection also changes the genome of these women so that the daughters they give birth to will inherit this reduced fecundity. This means that far more than average of their fetuses will undergo abortions (or, in a somewhat kinder scenario, their female fetuses will be aborted more often than male ones).
Only this one woman and her daughters who were off in this Carribean island are safe from the viral plague. Also assume that the viral plague consumes itself within that fateful week. This woman and her daughters are now free to breed in a world where their reproductive potential far outstrips that of every other woman alive (and to be born of these women). Soon, almost every one on Earth will be related in some fashion to this one woman. Finally, when the last woman who was born to one of the matrilineal descendents of an infected woman dies, the non-infected Carribean tourist takes on the title of the new Mitochondrial Eve. Every human alive on Earth at that point in time is now related via the mitochondrial line to her.
But consider this new twist. Suppose a group of astronauts (men and women) were sent off into space during the infection week, and were thus not infected themselves. After many centuries in a Moon or Mars colony, they returned to Earth. At that time, suddenly, the title of Mitochondrial Eve would revert back to our own ME. The humans alive on the Earth at that time would all share their mitochondrial DNA with an earlier common ancestor.[/q]
Genetic diseases; I have no idea what you're on about here.
WHY DID WE NOT EVOLVE? CREATIONIST VIEW.
A common factor in DNA, cells, and all living things, is orderliness and design. You can’t have design without a designer. Orderliness tells of intelligence to make order, some other being or force out there; God. DNA carries the information necessary to tell the cell how to duplicate, feed, and how to cooperate with other cells. All in all, to become a complex living being. There is no way that could ever occur by chance. Cells and DNA are extremely complex and orderly, as a certain cell is used for a certain task. And the DNA cell tells which cells to be what and do what, and passes the necessary information to each cell in full, become a living organism. There is no order in chance, or luck. This order, or design, points to a creator, God.
Again, this is a wrong assumption of chance. Also it ignores the theory of DNA and protein evolution.
Clearly, DNA which coded a cell to sit and die, is not going to be propagated very far.
Remember, we started as single celled organisms, and that cell structure evolved. Multi-celled organisms came thereafter and, again, structures which were not beneficial would have been culled by natural selection.
NATURAL SELECTION AND MUTATIONS.
Evolutionists believe that when the big bang occurred it also created ameba’s, which over millions of years mutated into living animals. Those animal species eventually faced catastrophes and intolerable climate changes, which led to mass extermination and few survivors. Those survivors either adapted and lived, or became immune to the event and they developed slightly changed characteristics. Those characteristic traits were passed down, to their descendants, which were immune from birth to the event that killed a lot of the pervious species. [/colour]
Evolutionists do not 'believe that when the big bang occurred it also created amoebas'. This is wrong. Firstly, abiogensis is a seperate topic to evolution, and does not predict spontaneous life - the opposite (for one thing, you need the stars and earth to accrete).
Also, extinction as the driving force of natural selection/evolution is completely and utterly wrong. Evolution does not require any form of catastrophe or climatic change.
Whilst an adaptation that allows an animal to survive a catastrophe would be an obvious one, the vast majority of mutations are negative. Those few positive, can be very minor - like having 5% better vision and being able to avoid predators more easily (or conversely, catch prey). Also, it depicts adaptation as a reactionary event, which is wrong; adaptation is not reactonary (mutations are random), but selection is (that is, it down to environment).
This is the theory of Natural Selection. It may also be known as survival of the fittest. A species either died off, or a new species came from them. Traits and characteristics changed and allowed the current generations to adapt and survive. Species sometime derived into two species, instead of just one. So that’s how the many different species of animals today came to be. They kept mutating into what we see today. Foxes and Dogs and Wolfs all are similar species of the Canine Family. From the similarities, they say that they all came from the same ancient ancestor.
You've forgotten sexual selection. And also mischaracterised the pace of evolution IMO.
Creationists believe that God created all animals and living things at Creation. Though they may have changed since God created the universe, they didn’t change by natural selection or mutation, but changed within fixed limits. Not nearly as extreme as the Evolutionists believe. So the animals we see today are mainly how God created them at Creation.
Contradicted by fossil evidence. Also fails to explain why God would create something that needed to be changed - isnn't His creation supposed to be perfecT?
MAN - APE OR NOT?
Evolutionists believe that by natural selection and mutation, over millions of years, man evolved from apes and apes from previous species. There was no special plan or design, just survial of the fittest. They believe also that the path of evolution of species is all by chance, that there is no guiding force. That the big bang and the creation of life from non-living material was chance and luck, same as the evolution of all species was.
Again, the incorrect use of 'chance' referring to evolutionary progress; a fundamental error and an complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Survival of the fittest again ignores sexual selection.
Finally, consider this; if the big bang and life evolve by chance, what are the odds? One in a trillion? More?
Well, there are billions of planets in this universe. So we only need a one in a billion chance of life forming to justify it here. Not good enough? How do we know there isn't an jnfinite number of big-bang/big-crunch style chains, in parallel or sequential? That'd be infinite opportunities.
Here's another thing - how likely is it that an omnipotent and omniscent being just pops into existence, creates the earth, places stuff in the Earth contradicting the story he, she or it tells people, waits several thousand years before making itself known (and allowing the likes of polytheistic Greek, etc religions to toddle on), and makes such a botch job that they need to keep coming back and wiping out or modifying animals?
Creationists believe God created man in one day, not over millions of years. Man today came from previous men who all are decendents of Adam and Eve, the first male and female. Some Christians believe that God made the universe and left it. Others believe he directs it, or directs the evolution of the universe.
FOSSILS MILLIONS OR THOUSANDS OF YEARS?
Evolutionists believe that the fossils are an accumulation of years of dead animals and extinct species spanning a great amount of time (millions of years). These are found through several layers of the earth’s crust. Though there are gaps in the fossil record, it is to be expected, as it is a natural and hard process for a fossil to be created by nature. In order for a fossil to be produced, the dead carcass has to first be buried quickly, and then several layers of sediment and earth has to cover it. Then it lies in wait forming the fossil, until someone finds it and uncovers it. Wind and rain and other natural forces can destroy fossils when exposed and uncovered, so it reduces the number of fossils we are able to find.
Creationists believe that at a time when man and animals were many in number God caused the Noachian Flood, also called The Great Flood, to happen. Sonder says, "Perhaps the Flood had been caused by a sudden shift of the Earth’s axis that had spewed up massive amounts of underground water. First, smaller animals had been swept away, and they had settled into the mud according to their specific gravity, or, roughly, their weight. Fish had died and floated to the water’s surface. Larger animals and humans ran to hilltops and mountain tops to escape the flood, but finally it reached them. They drowned and where covered with sediment in the years that followed. In other words, the fossils in the strata were not the remains of organisms that lived at different times. All had perished together in the Great Flood." 6 (Ben Sonder)
This is wrong; I mentioned earlier that history and geology proves the flood didn't happen, so lets just address fossils. How can the strata be so perfectly sorted? Why aren't brachiosaurs mixed in with elephants? How could a large mammal move faster than a small one? Why do all these fossils happen to be nicely organised in a way that shows a continuity of physical features? Fluid mechanics says small animals should be at the top, not bottom of any soft strata - so why are small organisms lower down? Why is there different pollen in different strata - did the flood water also sort pollen so each layer of strata had different climatological data? (fossilized pollen is used to determine climatic history). Why are there fossilized forests standing perfectly upright despite these vast tonnages of soil & sediment? (although there isn't actually any sediment deposits to support the flood).
Perhaps one of the most important issues - how does the flood explain fossil mineralization? Because, y'see, fossils aren't bones - they're replaced by minerals. We have archeological evidence from biblical and pre-biblical times that shows there's not enough time for this to happen.
This explains how fossils got to be at different levels of the earth’s crust. The flood, which mass moved a massive amount of dirt, to account for the many layers of crust over the fossils, is why many species are extinct today. This is not the cause of natural selection, or because they were a weak species or died off due to catastrophes; but if God created the world only a few thousand years ago, the fossils could not possibly be millions of years old.
Wrong. See above.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. This group, which emerged in recent years, believes that there is no God or creator. They believe also that, the universe did not happen by chance, and evolution did not happen by natural selection (chance). They believe, that the complexity of a living being, of all the cells, and the path in which evolution took, did not happen by chance. In theory, an intelligent force designed it that way, and sort of guided it along. Once again, not God, but an intelligent force. Some claim this is ‘creation science’ in disguise, and that it’s just another attempt to discredit evolution and be pro-creationist. According to Dwain L. Ford, in his section in the book "In Six Days", "Evidence for intelligent design is widespread in nature. For example:
Incorrect. ID is well known and documented to be run and created by fundamentalist Christian groups. For example, the 'Pandas and People' book cited in the Dover trial (where it was ruled ID was religious) saw a number of changes between editions that included the ad-verbatim replacement of 'creationism' with 'intelligent design'.
A) The motorized rotating flagellum of some bacteria.
B) Blood clotting and its control.
C) The high degree of organization within a typical cell.
D) Cell division and its control.
E) The system for protein synthesis.
F) The human eye.
G) The respiratory chain based in the highly organized mitochondria.
H) The biosynthetic pathway in which acetyl CoA is the key compound." 7 (John F. Ashton)
Kind of getting late, so I'll be brief and say all of these can be explained by the forces of natural selection (although I think e) is again abiogensis). to take one specific case, it's been well illustrated how a human eye could evolve from a light sensitive patch in about 700,000 years, and this has been shown as well through convergent evolution (animals with different eye structures). i'll let Kara or someone do the rest.
CONCLUSION
Ben Sonder summarizes the main points of each position in his book as follows 3 (Ben Sonder) ,
"The Creationist Position
1. The universe, energy, and life were created from nothing.
2. Mutation and natural selection could not by themselves have brought about the development of all living things from a single organism.
3. The originally created kinds of plants and animals may have changed, but only within fixed limits.
4. Man and apes have separate ancestries.
5. The Earth’s geology can be explained by Catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood.
6. The Earth and living kinds came into existence recently.
The Evolutionist Position
1. Through naturalistic processes, the universe emerged from disordered matter and life emerged from non-life.
2. Mutation and natural selection are sufficient to explain the development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds.
3. Present living kinds emerged from simple earlier kinds by mutation and natural selection.
4. Man emerged form a common ancestor with apes.
5. The earth’s geology and the evolutionary sequence can be explained by uniformitarianism. *
6. The earth came into existence several billion years ago and life came into existence somewhat later.
*Note: uniformitarianism is a doctrine stating that modern geological processes are sufficient to account for all geological changes in the past."
Though my personal beliefs say that Evolutionism is not true, everyone is entitled to their opinion. They do have some facts, though they may be flawed in some form. They have fossils but the dating is flawed. Either way you have to decide for yourself, weather you will believe in Creationism or Evolutionism. As I said at the beginning, you can’t totally prove or disprove either side; so, it comes down to if you believe in God or chance.
Actually, everything you've cited as creationist evidence is based on theories that have been scientifically disproven to be, at best, quackery (and usually formed in order to 'convince' people like you rather than in the interest of scientific endeavour). You also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role and action of natural and sexual selection within evolutionary theory.
Right, well this was actually a bit less than I'd like to write (because there is a lot to be corrected), but I have work tomorrow. G'night.
-
Longest page on HLP ever.
-
the mitochondria DNA pointing to one mother
I decided I'd come back and have a go at this one cause I actually do understand what Mitochondrial Eve actually means where as you apparently don't.
In any species you can trace back to a single organism in this way. It's nothing special in the slightest. It's a simple product of mathmatics. Suppose you take everyone alive today and call that Set S. Now take a set of their mothers. That is Set S2. S2 can not be bigger than S as everyone has only one mother. It can be smaller as many people have more than one child. Now we take a new set S3 composed of S2's mothers. Again the same rules apply so S3 must be the same size or smaller than S2.
Now it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that if I keep doing that I'll end up with a set with only one person in it. The sets are either getting smaller or staying the same size so sooner or later I'll end up with a set with only one woman in it. This is mitochondrial eve. There's nothing special about her really. She isn't the first woman ever. In fact she had other women in her tribe but their descendants aren't alive.
See Mitochondrial Eve is what you get when you start at the bottom branch of a family tree and work your way up. If you start at the top and work your way down you'll find that there are lots of other branches but because we started in one place and worked upwards we don't see them.
Furthermore who Mitochondrial Eve is can change. If I were to kill everyone in the world apart from my sister my mother would become mitochondrial eve since her set would be the first set where there is only 1 person. If I later found I'd missed someone in Australia Mitochondrial Eve would change again. The Toba supervolcanic erruption for instance actually pushed the date at which Mitochondrial Eve lived quite far forwards.
Lastly you point to mitochondrial eve as if it is somehow evidence in your favour yet you choose to ignore that no figure comes out with her existing 6,000 years ago. In fact they tend to place her at 200,000 years ago. Ironic how one of the best evidences for creationism turns out to actually prove that young Earth creationism must be wrong.
-
Firslty, animals don't have the fear of man. That's why carnivores like sharks, alligators, cheetahs, etc attack man (because we're fragile & slow prey compared to, say, a gazelle). Would you go out on a walk, unarmed, in the middle of the African plains?
Actually, you would be reasonably safe doing that. Most carnivores do fear people. The ones that don't are either ones that do not come in contact with people often enough to develop such a fear (sharks) or just aren't that bright. The documented instances of attacks upon humans tend to point to two possiblities: we should stop poking the animal with a stick (whether we realized we were or not is, unfortunately, irrevelant; the animal doesn't much care if you think you're harrassing it, all it cares about is that it thinks you're harrassing it) or the animal was desperate enough that it took the first available prey to come along.
Although an excellent argument exists that they just ignore us because we taste bad. According to the societies which both practiced cannablism and have been studied in detail, human meat tastes like pork. Flyblown, rancid pork that's been left sitting in the dirt for week. As correlation it should be noted that most attacks on humans by predators end with one or two bites, and the human is not actually consumed.
-
The trouble with humans is that we tend to be more difficult to catch and kill than it's worth. We're tall for our mass, so it's harder to suprise us in low brush. We're capable of fighting back, we usually travel in groups (when around areas where we would get attacked by large predators) and we're fairly versitile at throwing things/making lots of noise/otherwise not acting like any self-respecting prey. We also don't have a particularly high muscle/bone ratio so our meat isn't the most rewarding. Overall though what makes the difference is that we're bold, and as such we are not the norm and should be feared. However, it's rare to be able to find an animal that hasn't had the oppertunity to learn about man and that isn't cautious from experience. There's nothing inate about it and nothing to stop them from attacking us if they are desperate.
-
you people are denying your own beliefs...
how foolish....
-
you people are denying your own beliefs...
Who is denying their own beliefs?
-
awww, all the good points have already been taken. I've always liked the New Testament better than the old anyways.
He created Adam and Eve, the first male and female, from which we are all descendants. This is all found in the Bible, in the Genesis book.
does anyone wanna explain, without using evolution, how there are many different races, all of which a directly descended from a single white (according to many religious paintings) couple?
Some Christians believe that God made the universe and left it. Others believe he directs it, or directs the evolution of the universe.
just as a side note, that's me.
Life created by chance by non-living material is radically impossible.
I can create life from non-living things. (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ywiIW00J6sQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) Does that make me God? No.
You can’t have design without a designer.
True, but is it really design? Ever seen the famous "Virgin Mary" Potato? Just because we see a design doesn't mean there is one. Humans are very easy to fool. Just ask Orson Welles.
Creationists believe that at a time when man and animals were many in number...All had perished together in the Great Flood." 6 (Ben Sonder)
off topic, but why is the killing of 6 million helpless Jews considered "absolutely repulsive and horrific", while the murder of all but around 5 people is considered a "miracle"?
-
you people are denying your own beliefs...
how foolish....
You know, it would be so much easier to have this conversation if you could possibly post something that's not single-line, arbitrary and inflamatory. A simple explanation as to what you mean would be a nice start, but the reasoning behind your posts would go a lot farther.
does anyone wanna explain, without using evolution, how there are many different races, all of which a directly descended from a single white (according to many religious paintings) couple?
Good point, though if we're going by the actual Bible - and not European artists - the correct race would be one of the Middle-eastern variety.
I can create life from non-living things. (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ywiIW00J6sQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1) Does that make me God? No.
Nice catch using the Google cache for Wikipedia. I looked for a couple of things in there but was timing out on it as well.
True, but is it really design? Ever seen the famous "Virgin Mary" Potato? Just because we see a design doesn't mean there is one.
Or the Virgin Mary toast, or highway underpass, etc...
-
Patent nonsense. Crystals show a high degree of order without the need for a designer. Are you claiming that God designs ever single snowflake? Your argument is fallacious. You must prove that a designer is needed before you can claim this. So far you have not done this.
Complete and utter nonsense. They believe nothing of the kind.
Gross simplification. Natural selection occurs at the level of the individual not at the level of the species. It is hard to tell if this is just an oversimplicifcation or another misunderstanding.
Radiocarbon dating easily proves that those fossils are not only thousands of years old. There is simply too little carbon 14 present for them to.
Wrong. The ID people are predominantly christian.
Wrong yet again. Most ID'ers do believe it's God. They simply don't say that much when trying to discredit evolution using ID. If you want to ignore ID completely in this debate I'm more than happy to ignore them too but at least get what they say correct in the first place. that young.
The point being? This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The big bang theory is about how the early universe was created, and may or may not be right. There are several alternative theories about. Earth, the Sun and the other planets however did not spontaneously create itself out of pure energy, they formed from the slow consolitation of matter into larger and larger clumps. There is little disagreement over this, as it's a process continually happening throughout the galaxy and is readily observable with powerful telescopes. But regardless of, wrong theory.
Oh, and incidentally, the fact that such formation of far away stars is observable in telescopes, combined with the known and proven speed of light, completely invalidates any young earth (well, young universe, but since the 'world' goes beyond just earth it applies) arguments that might rear their heads later. It is simple: We know stuff existed millions of years ago. We can, quite literally, see it right before our eyes. So no 'nothing existed prior to 10.000 BC', please. I know noone has claimed that yet, but consider that a preemptive strike I guess. Actually wait a sec...
Err, no. Just no. Big bang and evolution are two entirely seperate theories. They have nothing to do with each other, at all. Evolution doesn't come in until we already have a fully formed planet with at least some life on it. As far as the theory of evolution cares, god could have taken care of all the initial world-building and life-seeding.
That's just the "evidence" we've been looking to see. I've yet to see a creationist produce any though, as the trouble is it doesn't exist. We've got records of civilizations over 6000 years old, and that hardly leaves much time for early man even in a biblical context.
Neither has evolutionists, unless you call incomplete fossils “evolutional evidence”
No one has ever said that natural selection was luck, and the rest of natural history (origins of the universe, origins of life) are almost as philosophical as they are scientific.
What evidence have we actually found to support evolution? I mean theres lucy, and all those other types that are supposedly half transitioned man, and they all turn out to be either APE or MAN, NO APE-MAN
There, thats all of it.....
Another thing not mentioned yet is that Evolution states that everything is getting stronger and stronger and is getting more powerful...
The sun gets cooler, not hotter... Men get older, not younger... HECK even Windows XP gets slower...
-
you people are denying your own beliefs...
how foolish....
Still waiting on that report.
Seriously, though, if you want to have a civil conversation and have people take your own beliefs seriously, you've got to stop throwing random, inflammatory sentences out in the open and argue the points without calling all of us suckers of the devil. Making random one-liners is also a surefire way to convince the opposing team that you don't have any ammo left and are only proving your beliefs wrong.
And, for the love of God, only one period is necessary at the end of a sentence. Seriously, it's like a mini-willyprincipal going on with your posts.
-
does anyone wanna explain, without using evolution, how there are many different races, all of which a directly descended from a single white (according to many religious paintings) couple?
When a new generation was born, people went in different directions...
If you went where there was more sunlight, then you had darker skin..
Dude, its so possible...
-
HECK even Windows XP gets slower...
that made my day right there. :D
EDIT:
When a new generation was born, people went in different directions...
If you went where there was more sunlight, then you had darker skin..
Dude, its so possible...
buut isn't the changing of skin color to fit your environment considered evolution? it's "survival of the fittest" to change your skin color to avoid melonoma.
-
I used to think much like Zman did, then I realised that if my faith was totaly dependant on one line of the Bible, than it really wasn't worth anything anyway. How humanity was created in Christianity is more or less immaterial, notice it isn't in the Apostles creed, nor is it in any lists on what is required to be a Christian, that is until eveloution came around, when suddenly, in order to be Christian, you had to belive God created the Earth in 6 days (resting the 7th) and really, that's a moot point.
-
@Zman : You've quoted a whole bunch of my arguments completely out of context. Why?
What evidence have we actually found to support evolution? I mean theres lucy, and all those other types that are supposedly half transitioned man, and they all turn out to be either APE or MAN, NO APE-MAN
So homo habilis is a man or an ape? Or Homo Neanderthalis? Or Homo Erectus? Where do you draw the line then? Which are men and which are ape?
Another thing not mentioned yet is that Evolution states that everything is getting stronger and stronger and is getting more powerful...
The sun gets cooler, not hotter... Men get older, not younger... HECK even Windows XP gets slower...
Utter bollocks. Evolution does not describe a great progressive ladder. Evolution states that animals will evolve until the animal fits the niche they exist in. It doesn't claim anything like which you describe about aging and it certainly has nothing to do with astrophysics or the speed of windows XP :rolleyes:
When a new generation was born, people went in different directions...
If you went where there was more sunlight, then you had darker skin..
Dude, its so possible...
That's evolution!
People adapting to hot climates by getting darker pigmentation IS evolution. How is that possibly an argument in your favour?
-
I can't harp on this enough can I. Use proper quotes.
(bunch of quotes from earilier in this thread without explanation, source, or even organization)...
Neither has evolutionists, unless you call incomplete fossils “evolutional evidence”
Why yes, yes we do. Well, that along with a lot of other stuff already mentioned. Or how about (gasp) observable changes over time? Like bacteria mutating to form immunity to antibiotics, or weeds becoming resistant to herbacides, or any of a variety of fruit-fly type experiments. We have the evidence, regardless of whether or not you choose to ignore it.
...another random quote...
What evidence have we actually found to support evolution? I mean theres lucy, and all those other types that are supposedly half transitioned man, and they all turn out to be either APE or MAN, NO APE-MAN
What are Neanderthals then? They weren't man and they certainly weren't ape. Granted, they were not an ancestor of man either, but man and Neanderthal did share a common ancestor that was also not ape.
There, thats all of it.....
Another thing not mentioned yet is that Evolution states that everything is getting stronger and stronger and is getting more powerful...
The sun gets cooler, not hotter... Men get older, not younger... HECK even Windows XP gets slower...
:wtf: Yeah, ok. Except that evolution states nothing of the sort. Better able to survive in ones environment often has nothing to do with being stronger. In our case, it was by being smarter. In the case of a rat, it was by being faster and harder to see and catch. Or an owl, being able to see clearly in the dark. And by the way, the sun does get hotter as it ages.
I really believe you're capable of giving at least an internally consistant argument here, but it's going to require a little more effort.
-
i think everyone needs to lighten up, so here's a picture of one of my dad's shirts:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/Turey/andthentherewasbeersmall.jpg)
-
So homo habilis is a man or an ape? Or Homo Neanderthalis? Or Homo Erectus? Where do you draw the line then? Which are men and which are ape?
Homo Habilis is an Ape. its actually smaller then the so called missing link of evolution, "lucy".
Neanderthalis is a man with the disease called rickets, caused by lack of vitamin C.
Cro-Magnon's were man as well.
Home Erectus is also an Ape. (also known as "the Java-Man")
I'll post my science book pages now and post them so you can see what I'm talking about
-
Homo Habilis is an Ape. its actually smaller then the so called missing link of evolution, "lucy".
Size has nothing to do with ape-ness. It's all about things like brain size in relation to the skull and the shape of the jaw. Both the great apes and humans are bigger than Lucy, but that has no bearing whatsoever on her validity as a member of the human ancestoral family.
Neanderthalis is a man with the disease called rickets, caused by lack of vitamin C.
Where the hell do you get that garbage? An entire race of beings different because of a disease? There are fundamental skeletal differences between a Neanderthal and a modern human (again, mostly in the skull) that simply cannot be caused by disease.
Neanderthals were not men. They could not produce viable offspring with man. They were a different species entirely, but one that diverged from modern man much later than, say, chimps.
Cro-Magnon's were man as well.
Home Erectus is also an Ape. (also known as "the Java-Man")
Homo Erectus similarly was not ape, as he had features that were man-like than ape-like. Go far enough back, and the ancestors become common therefor the entire man/ape distinction gets lost. I'm just totally lost on why you make that arbitrary distinction for species that show a line of progression up to modern man. The question of when and how we changed into what we are today is something that's under study, sure, and I'll grant you that. But it's not "were we created" vs "did we evolve", it's "what did our ancestors look like, and why did they evolve divergently from the ancestors of the apes?"
I'll post my science book pages now and post them so you can see what I'm talking about
Lets see that book. Please.
-
Not to be taken seriously:
How do you know, personally, that Neanderthals can't have kids with Homo Sapiens? Hmmm? :wtf:
-
So homo habilis is a man or an ape? Or Homo Neanderthalis? Or Homo Erectus? Where do you draw the line then? Which are men and which are ape?
Homo Habilis is an Ape. its actually smaller then the so called missing link of evolution, "lucy".
Neanderthalis is a man with the disease called rickets, caused by lack of vitamin C.
Cro-Magnon's were man as well.
Home Erectus is also an Ape. (also known as "the Java-Man")
I'll post my science book pages now and post them so you can see what I'm talking about
They're all damn dirty apes. All of 'em stickin' self-absorbed holier-than-thou hominids!
Homo sapiens sapiens is an ape.
:)
-
Not to be taken seriously:
How do you know, personally, that Neanderthals can't have kids with Homo Sapiens? Hmmm? :wtf:
Well you see, a man and a Neanderthal walk into a bar...
;)
-
Not to be taken seriously:
How do you know, personally, that Neanderthals can't have kids with Homo Sapiens? Hmmm? :wtf:
Well you see, a man and a Neanderthal walk into a bar...
;)
Its been said that if you give a neanderthal modern clothes and a haircut and put him in a mall, few ppl would give him a second glance...
sorry bed time so I cant finish posting the book...
-
Not to be taken seriously:
How do you know, personally, that Neanderthals can't have kids with Homo Sapiens? Hmmm? :wtf:
Well you see, a man and a Neanderthal walk into a bar...
;)
Its been said that if you give a neanderthal modern clothes and a haircut and put him in a mall, few ppl would give him a second glance...
sorry bed time so I cant finish posting the book...
Now see, you've used the quote but you completely missed the point. Had you quoted my post where I was responding to you, then it would have made some sense, maybe. Here, you're badly missing a joke (spun off of another joke no less that was quoted in the text you quoted, complete with smilies and a huge bold disclaimer) that I don't have the time, or quite frankly the patience, to explain.
Anyway, a Neanderthal skull varies highly enough from that of a human that the two of them are easily classified as distinct species. And I mean easily. Whether clothes and a haircut could fool your average guy isn't really relevant to the discussion. The average guy doesn't have to contend with there being more than one species of human-like beings alive in the world today, so he wouldn't be looking for the things that distinguish the two, or at least not in casual observation. Far less noticable than a difference in skin tone, though, which people don't really give second glances to now. (Actually I'd argue that whoever said that in the first place was talking out of his ass, but as I don't have a diagram of a Neanderthal skeleton in front of me to compare to that of a human I can't say for certain. But then, that's sort of the theme for ID isn't it)
And of course you can't finish posting that book. I'm really starting to believe that it doesn't exist.
-
That's what I'm starting to think about McTeague by Frank Norris. I read it in high school in AP English, and no one I've talked to since then has ever heard of it. An excellent Naturalistic novel, but it's almost like my English teacher wrote it and made up the author.
-
ZmaN Charismatic, how old is the earth and why do you think that?
-
ZmaN Charismatic, how old is the earth and why do you think that?
I second this question, and I also ask that it be answered as you would answer it as if none of this thread to this point had transpired. Think about it as though a classmate were asking you about your world view in a strictly curious way, and that you don't have to defend anything. Just tell us what you think and why.
-
Neanderthalis is a man with the disease called rickets, caused by lack of vitamin C.
1) Rickets is caused by a lack of vitamin D not vitamin C. Lack of C causes scurvy.
2) Rickets presents with several very clear cut symptoms which are not present in Neandethals.
a) Bones of people affected by rickets are poor in calcium and as a result are lower density and weaker than normal. In contrast Neanderthals have thicker, denser bones than homo sapiens sapiens.
b) Rickets causes a very characteristic bowleggedness due to the bending of the leg bones. This is not observed in Neanderthals.
c) Neanderthals were significantly bigger than modern humans. It seems unlikely that any people who were suffering from vitamin defeciencies would manage to also grow larger than average too.
-
Well... a Neanderthal in a bar would have one big difference: the noticable lack of a chin :p
Other then that... :p
-
So homo habilis is a man or an ape? Or Homo Neanderthalis? Or Homo Erectus? Where do you draw the line then? Which are men and which are ape?
Homo Habilis is an Ape. its actually smaller then the so called missing link of evolution, "lucy".
Neanderthalis is a man with the disease called rickets, caused by lack of vitamin C.
Cro-Magnon's were man as well.
Home Erectus is also an Ape. (also known as "the Java-Man")
I'll post my science book pages now and post them so you can see what I'm talking about
'Men' are homo sapiens. The homo genus is the genus (of the family hominidae, including humans and great apes) enclosing the ancestors of modern man (the enclosure of homo hablis within this genera is actually an issue of scientific debate). You should also note that being descended from 'apes' does not mean descended from modern apes.
What you're doing here is making the classic mistake of trying to linearly group a transitional evolutional progression of species into some single type; obviously a transitional species or species line represents a transition between species/genera, so pigeon-holing would be at best a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise. I don't believe 'Lucy' (Australopithecus afarensis) has ever been definitively declared the 'missing link', though.
As for your scientific 'classifications', I presume you pulled them out your bum. Making such an obvious and schoolboy mistake over Neanderthal man would indicate so, as would the lack of awareness of the homo genus.
Just to pull a few things (for Gods sake, quote people!)
[q]Radiocarbon dating easily proves that those fossils are not only thousands of years old. There is simply too little carbon 14 present for them to.[/q]
Again, wrong. Fossil bone is not expected to contain any carbon 14; carbon dating is only used for up to about 40,000 (and has significant skew approaching that time), as the 1% error would begin to signficantly alter the result (carbon dating FYI has never been regarded as flawless). Most carbon in fossilized remains it likely to be from contamination such as via groundwater.
Creationist arguements around C14 tend to also wrongly base themselves on a constant rate of production of C14, which has been documented as being incorrect (using 22,000 year old sediment).
[q]
What evidence have we actually found to support evolution? I mean theres lucy, and all those other types that are supposedly half transitioned man, and they all turn out to be either APE or MAN, NO APE-MAN[/q]
Wrong. Why, on the very first page we have a transitional fossil. We have equine transitional fossils, and archeopteryx. Lots of transitional fossils. Macro-evolution created in the lab. Hell, what are disease resistant bacteria strains if not proof of evolution? You don't even known what a transitional fossil is though, I see, by your strange ape-man type terminology.
[q]
Another thing not mentioned yet is that Evolution states that everything is getting stronger and stronger and is getting more powerful...
The sun gets cooler, not hotter... Men get older, not younger...
[/q]
Again, incredibly wrong. Evolution - or rather, natural selection - puts evolution as being akin to an arms race. But each adaptation has costs; for example, a gazelle could keep evolving till it can run 200mph (assuming the laws of physics don't contradict this as a possibility); but the energy handicap of that would make that speed a disadvantage due to the amount of food that the gazelle needs to eat. You simply don't get a spiralling growth of efficiency. Also, imagine the cheetah chasing the gazelle; it only wins a small amount of hunts, so each run is more 'expensive' to it. So the faster the cheetah goes, the higher the cost of those failed chases. Ergo, the cheetah has a cap on how fast it can evolve to before the muscle expenditure is too much. Likewise, the gazelle only needs to evolve to be just a bit faster on average than the cheetah - those that evolve to be too fast will be wasting energy and thus at a disadvantage. So evolution tends towards equilibrium rather than continuous improvement because of this expenditure issue. Except, of course, that mutation is random and advantages will always be selected, so it can never be a constant equilibrium - for example, the gazelle develops 5% better peripheral vision and the cheetah now is disadvantaged, so some mutation that counteracts that would be one favoured by natural selection.
(this is of course ignoring speciation; these wouldn't stay the same species so gazelle and cheetah is a generalization. also, it is a simple example; you should read up geniune evolution information for further details. The Blind Watchmaker should be more than enough if you can swallow the propaganda and misinformation you've been fed & keep an open mind)
Again, this ignores sexual selection (mate choice), and the use of costly fitness ornamentation for sexual attractiveness ala the peacocks tail (or human language). Those would be intangible benefits to someone who doesn't understand the theory, but very tangible in practice.
And as for evolution negating aging - it, er, does. Turtles don't age naturally (or rather, they don't show the deterioration associated with age). But mutations are rather random, and expecting it to just pop into place on humanity that someone lives forever is more than a bit unlikely.
Also, the sun didn't evolve. That's physics that models the suns fusion processes. Quite how mindnumbingly stupid that statement is, i really can't find the words to say.
EDIT; I'm not sure what the point is of you even arguing when you've illustrated here you don't even know the slightest bit about the theory of evolution.
-
The sun gets cooler, not hotter... Men get older, not younger... HECK even Windows XP gets slower...
Actually, given that example of aging, you see something else at work...people actually grow and become larger and stronger, starting from a group of undifferentiated cells. If you want proof that a series of 'simple' molecules/cells can combine to form a far more complex organism, all you need to do is study the process of pregnancy.
-
Not that this post has anything to do with the actual thread, of course.
Just to pull a few things (for Gods sake, quote people!)
[q]Radiocarbon dating easily proves that those fossils are not only thousands of years old. There is simply too little carbon 14 present for them to.[/q]
Again, wrong. Fossil bone is not expected to contain any carbon 14; carbon dating is only used for up to about 40,000 (and has significant skew approaching that time), as the 1% error would begin to signficantly alter the result (carbon dating FYI has never been regarded as flawless). Most carbon in fossilized remains it likely to be from contamination such as via groundwater.
Creationist arguements around C14 tend to also wrongly base themselves on a constant rate of production of C14, which has been documented as being incorrect (using 22,000 year old sediment).
And this is exactly why I harp on people for failing to use quotes properly, here you're actually attacking (goes back a page, it looks like...) Karajorma's counterargument to Charismatic's assertion that the flood could have somehow caused fossils to reside in sedimentary layers. (God, that was needlessly complicated) You're both right, in a way, because in either case there's no way the fossils could be a mere 6,000 years old. But neither Charismatic or Zman brought radiological dating into this argument at all, and unfortunately that was lost somewhere. You're 100% correct about dating fossils, it's just not a counter argument to anything that's yet been posted.
Anyone caught not attempting to distinguish their post from what they are replying to via copy-paste should be smacked with a wet hose, IMHO.
Zman:
(http://www.duke.edu/~cek6/quote.gif) (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=799144;topic=39227.150;num_replies=170;sesc=0a1b4ff581ada4eb3d66638e13bc9520)
I'm sorry to everyone else, but some things can only be said with giant, low-res buttons. Please. Think then post.
-
AAHHH! Attack of the giant, mutated, low-res buttons!! The Clicked have now become the Clickers!! *Runs screaming into the hills*
-
And this is exactly why I harp on people for failing to use quotes properly, here you're actually attacking (goes back a page, it looks like...) Karajorma's counterargument to Charismatic's assertion that the flood could have somehow caused fossils to reside in sedimentary layers. (God, that was needlessly complicated) You're both right, in a way, because in either case there's no way the fossils could be a mere 6,000 years old. But neither Charismatic or Zman brought radiological dating into this argument at all, and unfortunately that was lost somewhere. You're 100% correct about dating fossils, it's just not a counter argument to anything that's yet been posted.
Anyone caught not attempting to distinguish their post from what they are replying to via copy-paste should be smacked with a wet hose, IMHO.
Zman:
(http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Themes/hlp/images/english/quote.gif)
Ah, you're right. There's a creationist arguement that you can date fossils using radiocarbon (and that c14 negates 'old earth'), which is what I thought he said. Anyways, it's really what kara meant then, but in a different context. So if anyone pulls out the creationist C14 arguements, we've already shown that's utter tosh. Yay!
so to paraphrase;
1/ you can't have fossils as 6,000 years old as you could reliably date them using c14 in the sediment (karas point) if that was so (actually, IIRC carbon dating specifically disproves in particular the 'canopy' flood scenario).
2/ fossils can be claimed to be 'young' using c14 dating, but this uses a bunch of erroneous assumptions about both carbon dating and carbon production/loss rates. (my point)
I guess this is a consequence of having to reply to creationist arguements that are based on saying something like 'rates of genetic disease' and then offering no explanation or expansion, so that i end up having more understanding of that 'point' (and why it is bunkum) than the poster. Ergo, it means i have to guess what they mean because they are so vapid and vague; although I guess it meshes with the complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.
ZMan - use the ****ing quote button! honestly, it's a nightmare.
-
Oh I knew exactly what you were on about, I just couldn't pass up the oppertunity to harp on copy-quoters and to make use of the 768x150 quote button. We're on the same page :)
EDIT: And I actually think I know what Zman was trying to point out with the dubious "rates of genetic diseases" crap. I believe he's trying to say that genetic disorders (e.g. Hemopheila) that would have been weeded out by natural selection are seemingly becoming more predominant in modern man and thus that the trend (again with the trends where trends aren't valid) can't extrapolate backwards very far before it crashes or reaches zero or whatever he's trying to point out. Of course, he's missing a rather glaring element of that equation, namely healthcare, which is serving to radically alter the process of selection in humans over the last century or two. It's a completely useless argument and anyone who stops and thinks about it should quickly see it for the farce it is, as of course the ability to live with the disorder despite the fact that it would kill you without intervention alters the factors of natural selection considerably.
-
Oh I knew exactly what you were on about, I just couldn't pass up the oppertunity to harp on copy-quoters and to make use of the 768x150 quote button. We're on the same page :)
EDIT: And I actually think I know what Zman was trying to point out with the dubious "rates of genetic diseases" crap. I believe he's trying to say that genetic disorders (e.g. Hemopheila) that would have been weeded out by natural selection are seemingly becoming more predominant in modern man and thus that the trend (again with the trends where trends aren't valid) can't extrapolate backwards very far before it crashes or reaches zero or whatever he's trying to point out. Of course, he's missing a rather glaring element of that equation, namely healthcare, which is serving to radically alter the process of selection in humans over the last century or two. It's a completely useless argument and anyone who stops and thinks about it should quickly see it for the farce it is, as of course the ability to live with the disorder despite the fact that it would kill you without intervention alters the factors of natural selection considerably.
I think it's also down to the typical creationist view of evolution as being 'directed', and ignoring that some genes can be recessive in carrier parents (or children) and thus escape selection through fitness. It's not like you could work out genetic disease rates for any reliably long and indicative period of time, anyways, due to the increasing understanding of genetics and diseases in general over that time period. They'd be viewed as curses from the devil or somesuch, for example.
Plus, of course, let's not forget negative disease-causing mutations, as either negative or invisible (that is, unnoticeable) mutations can occur. I think the average person has something like 17 mutated genes, although I'd need to double check that figure (in any case, the overwhelming majority of people have some minor mutation with no observable effect). Plus a large, monogamous group such as humanity mainly is would see a reduced rate of evolution because of the 'distance' a mutation would have to propagate to become part of the species.
Worth noting, though, that there are (for example) observed mutations (CCR5-delta-32) that convey protection against HIV and possibly smallpox or the plague (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/25/15276). And also the apolipoprotein A-1 (Milano) mutation, which protects against heart disease (http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/258/4/2508) by preventing atherosclerosis. For example. But if you imagine how quickly those genes could spread across the entire human population of 5+ bn (is it 6.5 now?), of which a large number are monogamous, then it'd take a long time for it to be uniform.
Although documented genetic susceptability to a disease would actually help back up evolution by showing how genetic characteristics can be inherited across multiple generations.
-
Yep. It makes it hard to even spot the other person's argument let alone figure out what it is meant to be.
I actually completely missed on of ZmaN's comments cause I couldn't spot it amongst the poor cut and paste of my own stuff.
-
Yep. It makes it hard to even spot the other person's argument let alone figure out what it is meant to be.
I actually completely missed on of ZmaN's comments cause I couldn't spot it amongst the poor cut and paste of my own stuff.
You didn't miss much.
-
Most people here already know this but I find it helpful to post it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
-
I'm enjoying the thread. It's been a long time since HLP hosted a good Evolution vs. Religious-Nonsense-Posing-As-Science Thread.
-
Tomorrow nights recommended viewing (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4110)
[q]Webcast commences: 1730GMT / 1830BST
Intro:Many biologists are worried by a recent and unexpected return of an argument based on belief by the certainty, untestable and unsupported by evidence, that life did not evolve but appeared by supernatural means. Worldwide, more people believe in creationism than in evolution.
Why do no biologists agree? Steve Jones will talk about what evolution is, about new evidence that men and chimps are close relatives and about how we are, nevertheless, unique and why creationism does more harm to religion than it does to science.
[/q]
courtesy of the Royal Society.
-
Nice timing. Gonna try to make time to watch that.
-
Nice timing. Gonna try to make time to watch that.
Yeah, I think the Royal Society is gearing up to actively counter the creationist myth as a result of some worrying things being taught in faith schools. It's pretty well hidden, even internally, but the current government has done a good job ****ing up the science curriculum by allowing academy/faith schools that teach this ill-founded and factually wrong rubbish. It's sad that in this day in age science is having to defend itself from attack, when we're surrounded by the benefits of human learning.
-
Well, it sure does seem like it's a fight that needs to be fought by now. At first I was just hoping it would die down once people realized the inherent sillyness of the whole thing, but here we are still. If this thing sticks, then what next? Renaming all the days since they've got 'heathen' names? Surely any good christian can't be caught uttering names based on the nordic gods.
Of course, over a long time frame, evolution (ironically...) will sort it all out. The people who deny science will be mostly stuck with what they have, and those who embrace it will move on. Give it a couple of millenia and the first group will be effectively in the stone age compared to the second ;)
-
Well, it sure does seem like it's a fight that needs to be fought by now. At first I was just hoping it would die down once people realized the inherent sillyness of the whole thing, but here we are still. If this thing sticks, then what next? Renaming all the days since they've got 'heathen' names? Surely any good christian can't be caught uttering names based on the nordic gods.
Of course, over a long time frame, evolution (ironically...) will sort it all out. The people who deny science will be mostly stuck with what they have, and those who embrace it will move on. Give it a couple of millenia and the first group will be effectively in the stone age compared to the second ;)
The problem is that the inherent silliness of it all is based on what sound like common sense, even sound arguements - that is, until you actually learn the most basic bit about the subject. Because they've succeded in both attacking scientific teaching and mischaracterising evolution & life (the use of 'obvious design' and 'chance' to describe biology here being a clear example of that misinformation in action), they've worked to soften the ground for creationism. It's a strategem that aims to posit the 'debate' (when on a factual, educated perspective there simply is no debate) by systematically lying about the alternative, in order to strengthen a shoddy position. We've already seen both Zman and Charismatic give reasons that are based on badly-done and faulty research (performed purely to try and claw some results to support creationism), and which are disproven both by weight of scientific evidence and common sense (the Great Flood managing to sort pollen and plant specimens in disparate climatological groups?), but because someone has crammed it into them, they're unwilling to actually look at the evidence with a rational, scientific eye.
It's not unlike getting someone who knows no maths atall, and telling them that pi=3 because it's in the bible, and that all the myriad of figures directly proving that wrong are all aetheist lies(as an aside, there are actually a fair number of ancient civillisations even predating the bible that had a more accurate value of pi). But if you begin rejecting all the evidence for evolution, then you reject the methodology involved. and then you reject all science, and this computer becomes magic, and we all go back to living in caves and praying for lightning to hit dry bush so we can sit by a fire.
-
all this would be great if Zman were to read it all and take it into proper consideration
however, his version of faith will cause him to reject it instantly, call it satan, and deem it evil.
its really quite annoying
-
all this would be great if Zman were to read it all and take it into proper consideration
however, his version of faith will cause him to reject it instantly, call it satan, and deem it evil.
its really quite annoying
Intelligent design of stupid people, I suppose.
-
I have always found the fixation of fundies on C14 dating to be quite humorous. Especially since the radiodating used for most old fossils is tied to Potassium->Argon dating. (which doesn't have issues of contamination that carbon dating does)
Even then, calibrated radiocarbon dates are very accurate as you're taking into account all of these variables. (which any self-respecting scientist does)
Of course even if we go on the claims that carbon dating is 60% inaccurate (which it's not) something 60,000 years old that's 60% inaccurate is still older than 6,000-8,000 years :p
-
I have always found the fixation of fundies on C14 dating to be quite humorous. Especially since the radiodating used for most old fossils is tied to Potassium->Argon dating. (which doesn't have issues of contamination that carbon dating does)
Even then, calibrated radiocarbon dates are very accurate as you're taking into account all of these variables. (which any self-respecting scientist does)
Of course even if we go on the claims that carbon dating is 60% inaccurate (which it's not) something 60,000 years old that's 60% inaccurate is still older than 6,000-8,000 years :p
I think the date skew for carbon dating is quite well known, anyways, at least to about 9,000 years (thanks to tree ring records that can be used to compare). It makes me want to cry, really. I enjoy these little debates, but the other side is that i'm going to have to spend most of my replies on the topic refuting basic errors that the most perfunctory google search would correct. And invitably the replies from the likes of Charismatic (wasn't that a Pokemon?) will come, thanks to time zones, when I am either in bed, or at work.
-
I'm enjoying the thread. It's been a long time since HLP hosted a good Evolution vs. Religious-Nonsense-Posing-As-Science Thread.
shut your fricken mouth....
Ill post the science pages when Im done with school.
And if youre asking why I havent posted it yet, its because i have a life beyond HLP..
And everything that was in the article I was gunna write is in the science book so theres no use in writing it. you can just read the pages yourself... Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..
-
I'm enjoying the thread. It's been a long time since HLP hosted a good Evolution vs. Religious-Nonsense-Posing-As-Science Thread.
shut your fricken mouth....
Ill post the science pages when Im done with school.
And if youre asking why I havent posted it yet, its because i have a life beyond HLP..
And everything that was in the article I was gunna write is in the science book so theres no use in writing it. you can just read the pages yourself... Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..
what, you mean rational arguements as evidenced by observation, experimentation and the scientific process? y'know, the same process that means your computer, electricity, internet connection, lights, plumbing system, healthcare.......... etc work.
Note; the scientific process is not picking the evidence and experimental methods to produce the results you want, not does it involve ignoring simple and documented fact. This is why it's so easy to pick apart creationist arguements; they have to ignore not just years but centuries of scientific knowledge to even begin to work, and the only way they can do so is to make fundamental mistakes like not understanding things like evolution. I notice every time you've posted an arguement it's been rapidly demonstrated to be false and scientficially proven so, and you've not been able to counter or even elucidate on the 'theories' you claim vindicate you. Could that be perhaps because you've been fed a bunch of impressive sounding buzzwords intended to destroy the perceived aetheism (something the Vatican doesn't percieve, oddly enough) of science, because your church believes you're naive enough to accept their statements without looking into the factual basis?
And, um, if the book contradicts a myriad of scientific knowledge - it is wrong. I'm betting that, if you give the name of this 'science' book and the author, we'll have a little peek and find it's written and funded by a creationist lobby group, and includes erroneous results that have never been submitted to nor would pass peer scrutiny.
-
I'm enjoying the thread. It's been a long time since HLP hosted a good Evolution vs. Religious-Nonsense-Posing-As-Science Thread.
shut your fricken mouth....
Ill post the science pages when Im done with school.
And if youre asking why I havent posted it yet, its because i have a life beyond HLP..
And everything that was in the article I was gunna write is in the science book so theres no use in writing it. you can just read the pages yourself... Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..
By the way, what do you think of gravitation? How much basis does it have, compared to evolutionary theories?
-
Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..
You know, funny you should say that, considering pro-creationism is basically saying 'Evolution is wrong, we're right, and biologists are stupid!'.
-
That's because religion tends to be comprised of philosophically sterile arguments. The constant reference to a divine order is categorically self-justifying, and thus is impervious to any possible argument against it. In that respect it's ironically similar to solipsism, which I'm sure any religious fundamentalist would condemn as a heretical notion.
-
Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..
You know, funny you should say that, considering pro-creationism is basically saying 'Evolution is wrong, we're right, and biologists are stupid!'.
Funnily enough that's actually all ID was too when all was said and done.
-
Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..
You know, funny you should say that, considering pro-creationism is basically saying 'Evolution is wrong, we're right, and biologists are stupid!'.
I'm not sure it was as sophisticated as that.
Funnily enough that's actually all ID was too when all was said and done.
-
shut your fricken mouth....
Ill post the science pages when Im done with school.
And if youre asking why I havent posted it yet, its because i have a life beyond HLP..
And everything that was in the article I was gunna write is in the science book so theres no use in writing it. you can just read the pages yourself... Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..
Lol?
edited for flaminess.
-
Keep it civil, all of you. Personal attacks aren't necessary.
-
Sometimes I am glad that I live in a country where we don't have debates like this.......
On the other hand I miss them because they are so much fun. I find it interesting that, despite all of the benefits of science and technology, people still attack it as being evil (especially in America). They do it because science shows us just how small, weak, and pathetic we really are.
Here is part of a website that talks about this kind of thing.
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php
Enjoy.
-
Anyone who [is||will be] arguing on the creation side owes it to themselves to read this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)
-
Sometimes I am glad that I live in a country where we don't have debates like this.......
I'm glad as hell to live in a country where we have debates over religion/science/anything. It shows that we're still allowed to think and have ideas that differ from one ruling authoritarian party. But that's another debate for another day. Good link, though. It sums up everything neatly that aldo and kara have been saying throughout the whole thread.
Anyone who [is||will be] arguing on the creation side owes it to themselves to read this
Very highly advised. This was a very good read, and I saw a couple of points in there that ZmaN and Char have been trying to employ in their debates.
-
I'm glad as hell to live in a country where we have debates over religion/science/anything. It shows that we're still allowed to think and have ideas that differ from one ruling authoritarian party.
I don't think that's what Kosh was getting at. It's simply pathetic that such a gigantic fraction of the USA's population actually believes this ****, even though they obviously should still have the right to believe it.
-
I'm glad as hell to live in a country where we have debates over religion/science/anything. It shows that we're still allowed to think and have ideas that differ from one ruling authoritarian party. But that's another debate for another day. Good link, though. It sums up everything neatly that aldo and kara have been saying throughout the whole thread.
Hmmrah. That **** isn't debated here as much. At least definitly not in politics as much. Religeon does not belong in politics or science IMO. >..>
Most people agree, and those who don't. Disagree. Why keep arguing?
Ed: That and what Ford Prefect said. :p
-
I'm glad as hell to live in a country where we have debates over religion/science/anything. It shows that we're still allowed to think and have ideas that differ from one ruling authoritarian party.
I don't think that's what Kosh was getting at. It's simply pathetic that such a gigantic fraction of the USA's population actually believes this ****, even though they obviously should still have the right to believe it.
ah, the big creation debate, where devout catholics still think that adam was made from dirt (which classically would make him a golem) and eve, was made from adam's rib (which would either make her a clone, or a sister in the very least) and to get from just two white people, to a widely diverse and unique species numbering over 6 billion in just over six thousand years!. :p
"and on the seventh day, god invented barry white" ;7
-
I'm glad as hell to live in a country where we have debates over religion/science/anything. It shows that we're still allowed to think and have ideas that differ from one ruling authoritarian party. But that's another debate for another day. Good link, though. It sums up everything neatly that aldo and kara have been saying throughout the whole thread.
Hmmrah. That **** isn't debated here as much. At least definitly not in politics as much. Religeon does not belong in politics or science IMO. >..>
Agreed. Religion should be kept apart from the government, which is just all too obvious in too many areas of the world (USA and Middle East being the big ones). We simply can't have leaders declaring crusades or jihads; religion's too powerful a weapon in the hands of the government for it to be trusted to politicians.
-
I'm glad as hell to live in a country where we have debates over religion/science/anything. It shows that we're still allowed to think and have ideas that differ from one ruling authoritarian party. But that's another debate for another day. Good link, though. It sums up everything neatly that aldo and kara have been saying throughout the whole thread.
Hmmrah. That **** isn't debated here as much. At least definitly not in politics as much. Religeon does not belong in politics or science IMO. >..>
Agreed. Religion should be kept apart from the government, which is just all too obvious in too many areas of the world (USA and Middle East being the big ones). We simply can't have leaders declaring crusades or jihads; religion's too powerful a weapon in the hands of the government for it to be trusted to politicians.
Indeed. :yes:
Seriously, sometimes I think Bush = Anti-Christ. But that's another debate... as you said. >..>
-
Indeed. :yes:
Seriously, sometimes I think Bush = Anti-Christ. But that's another debate... as you said. >..>
nah, the anti-christ is supposed to make things -seem- to get better, before he starts trying to make ppl worship him as god. the history channel special thing sounded like it was spinning it so the antichrist would appeal to intelligent, science-minded people.
-
Indeed. :yes:
Seriously, sometimes I think Bush = Anti-Christ. But that's another debate... as you said. >..>
nah, the anti-christ is supposed to make things -seem- to get better, before he starts trying to make ppl worship him as god. the history channel special thing sounded like it was spinning it so the antichrist would appeal to intelligent, science-minded people.
Ummm. To me, bush is trying to do that very thing. In his mind anywho. >..>
-
Indeed. :yes:
Seriously, sometimes I think Bush = Anti-Christ. But that's another debate... as you said. >..>
nah, the anti-christ is supposed to make things -seem- to get better, before he starts trying to make ppl worship him as god. the history channel special thing sounded like it was spinning it so the antichrist would appeal to intelligent, science-minded people.
Ummm. To me, bush is trying to do that very thing. In his mind anywho. >..>
nah, the anti-christ would be smart, and not nearly choke to death on salted snackfoods.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Turnsky/bush_-Caption3.jpg)
-
What better front than a muling stupid idiot to the smart people and a knight in shining army for the dumb folk. Sound's like a good plan for an evil person to me. >..>
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html
here's a nice little article about intelligent design.
argue about creationism all you like, but if its disguised as science, then it becomes a load of bull.
i cant wait to see Zman's 'science book'
-
There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. However there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed—see Q&A: Dinosaurs.
From http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
Whoever posted this said it was a good article, but appearently never read this part. :p
I don't think that's what Kosh was getting at. It's simply pathetic that such a gigantic fraction of the USA's population actually believes this ****, even though they obviously should still have the right to believe it.
:nod:
-
Whoever posted this said it was a good article, but appearently never read this part. :p
I read it. Their guide on what NOT to use is correct. Everything not considered "unusable" is still circumspect.
-
Thats an interesting site. Nice to see a site that can acknowledge both current real science and the Judea/Christian faith. As fare as I'm concerned, I dont need science to validate faith, but I always like to stay on top of current scientific findings and research.
I just dont understand the level of disrespect and posturing that goes on in these threads. If someone errors, cant correction come in more diplomatic termand not synical remarks and mockery?
-
Sometimes I am glad that I live in a country where we don't have debates like this.......
Could that be because you're in a country that doesn't have debates?
-
Anyone who [is||will be] arguing on the creation side owes it to themselves to read this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)
That site makes a large number of fundemental mistakes itself though. I don't believe that replacing one long list of creationist fantasies with another one is any kind of progress even if it does mean that I'd never have to hear that nonsense about the 2nd law again.
I particularly dislike their assertion that many of those theories are strawmen concocted by anti-creationists. We've seen those arguments posted several times by people on this board so unless they're claiming that ZmaN, Charismatic and all the others I've argued with are actually pretending to be creationists in order to discredit creationism I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Those arguments are used by creationists because they simply don't understand the science involved well enough to see why they are wrong. They are not used by scientists attempting to create an argument we can eaily win. We have to spend enough time refuting this nonsense without feeling the need to invent more.
Thats an interesting site. Nice to see a site that can acknowledge both current real science and the Judea/Christian faith. As fare as I'm concerned, I dont need science to validate faith, but I always like to stay on top of current scientific findings and research.
I agree with the sentiment but I disagree that the site does that. All they do is point out the scientific flaws in other creationist literature while turning a blind eye to their own. In many ways this is actually worse.
Charismatic and ZmaN may be wrong but that is because they got bad information from books and websites that cherry pick their data. The authors of this site must have deliberately ignored the scientific method on the data that supported their point of view while applying it to data that didn't. The authors do understand science which means that they are deliberately twisting results in order to favour their point of view. I find this to be far more dishonest and reprehensible behaviour than that of pretty much any other creationist I've seen.
I just dont understand the level of disrespect and posturing that goes on in these threads. If someone errors, cant correction come in more diplomatic termand not synical remarks and mockery?
Perhaps I should point out that ZmaN accused everyone of being seduced by Satan's lies in his first post on the thread. How calmly would you take such a comment?
I agree that there is no need be be insulting but that applies equally to both sides.
-
The saddest thing about this thread is that it really is obvious that Charismatic and ZmaN simply don't understand evolution, but more importantly, don't want to understand evolution. And it sounds as though it's not necessarily because you've looked both over, pondered the evidence, and made a decision. It's that you've been taught to think that way. It is essentially exactly what people who support ID to want.
In a way I can't blame them. It'd be like if somebody one day were to start trying to argue to me that little gremlins make lights glow. Obviously I'd dispute and respond with theories about electrons. But really, I'd just be going by what I'd been taught - I personally haven't done an experiment on the scale of an electron.
But I guess at the same time, you have to look at who's supporting Evolution and why. It's chiefly scientists and learned. people. Meanwhile, the people who support ID are mostly Christians. The mere fact that there are so many opinions on what, exactly, Creation is should be a warning sign right away.
I'll leave you with this bit of a comment, that I think was originally said by Thunder/Kalfireth awhile back. If God were to show up sometime in the early BCs, and to start dictating the bible to someone, would he spend the time on explaining stellar formation, genetics, geography, continental drift, molecular biology, etc etc and everything that goes into the scientific theories? Or would he just put it in simple terms that everyone could understand without requiring a lifetime of learning?
Personally I think it'd be the latter. The Bible is about how to live your life in accordance with God's plan, not to a science textbook.
-
Thats an interesting site. Nice to see a site that can acknowledge both current real science and the Judea/Christian faith. As fare as I'm concerned, I dont need science to validate faith, but I always like to stay on top of current scientific findings and research.
I just dont understand the level of disrespect and posturing that goes on in these threads. If someone errors, cant correction come in more diplomatic termand not synical remarks and mockery?
It's hard not to be cynical when such basic mistakes are not just being made but actually taught. We've seen this, what, 3 or 4 times by now - the same errors, the same basic mistakes, and the same unwillingness to listen. Yeah, it is a bit rude, and it is a bit of a turkey shoot, but to be frank I lost any sense of respect for that sort of intentional and willing blindness a long time ago and if an idea is stupid and idiotic I'm damn well going to say so.
I mean, we are talking about a thread where Zman posts some keyword, I have to look up what he actually (I presume) means by it, post why it's scientifically proven to be wrong with example sof the reasearch, and the response is
[q]Ill post the science pages when Im done with school.
And if youre asking why I havent posted it yet, its because i have a life beyond HLP..
And everything that was in the article I was gunna write is in the science book so theres no use in writing it. you can just read the pages yourself... Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..[/q]
Bullcrap. 200 years(+) of human endeavour, dismissed as 'bullcrap' because some bloody creationist propaganda textbook says so. Moreso, that book, I bet, will claim to 'prove' this using scientific results, and in effect aim to disprove something using the standards set by science, and having to actually break or ignore those standards in order to do so (such as selectively picking evidence to predetermine a conclusion, or ignoring contradictory proofs).
So yeah, maybe some of the replies have been rude, etc. But can you really blame people for getting pissed off? This genuinely threatens human progress - justnow it's evolution, and that might not seem to immediately disasterous for societal welfare, but just wait until it turns to things like medicine (where it kind of has begun to already) and we end up praying rather than getting prescriptions.
NB: i missed this earlier;
does anyone wanna explain, without using evolution, how there are many different races, all of which a directly descended from a single white (according to many religious paintings) couple? )I presume this is a quote?)
When a new generation was born, people went in different directions...
If you went where there was more sunlight, then you had darker skin..
Dude, its so possible...
So why are babies born black to black parents? And mixed-colour to mixed-race parents? Wouldn't changing skin colour (to be precise, the preservation of a skin colour change due to it having a natural advantage) in response to the environment, and then maintaining that skin colour across generations, even when the people have moved to different climates ala to the UK, be evidence of evolution?
Yes. Yes it would, and is. I believe the/a theory is that skin colour effects things like Vitamin D intake, and that lighter skin is beneficial in 'cold' areas as it allows greated Vitamin D intake from the reduced sunlight, whereas darker skin is advantageous in warm areas as it blocks Vitamin D, which can be toxic in high concentations (the initial darker skin evolution is possibly a response to the loss of hairy bodies, which in turn is IIRC likely due to the evolution of sweat glands that would soak hair and cause heating problems, etc). So not only does evolution address and predict such a change as a selected adaptation, science also provides a proper solid reason. Evolution also explains why we don't see white people who emigrate to Africa turn black overnight - or the converse - as evolution moves fastest in smaller populations where genetic changes are able to more rapidly propagate across that population.
In a way I can't blame them. It'd be like if somebody one day were to start trying to argue to me that little gremlins make lights glow. Obviously I'd dispute and respond with theories about electrons. But really, I'd just be going by what I'd been taught - I personally haven't done an experiment on the scale of an electron.
That's a fair point, but it has to be heavily tempered with the fact that science is peer-reviewed and transparent; the results and methodology are not just cross-checked, but published so they can be checked. It's also open to revisal, provided there is sufficient grounds provided (i.e. evidence gathered using the scientific method). whereas something like Id goes the opposite way, as we've seen already. Just look at that 'humans are closest to chickens' type quote going back to about page 2. Now, we're meant to take that on face value. But if you look into it, there is no supporting evidence provided, no basis given, and that extends beyond the usage of quoting what sounds like an explicit fact but turns out to be completely unfounded and have, literally, as much factual basis as me just declaring 'fish are bicycles'. And it's not as if the very proponent of that 'fact' hasn't been challenged to provide evidence, because he has - and has failed. I believe it was Gish, actually (Gish is an Id/creationist spokeperson masquerading as a scientist; from what i understand he's a pretty good orator who specialises in fault science and 'debates' with selectively picked opposition).
That's why I'm so confident this vaunted science book will be, to quote myself, a 'creationist propaganda textbook'; because everything Zman has put so far has been a sort of buzzword or set of buzzwords, with no elucidation (presumably because he has none - he just takes it at face value because the book does) or explanation, and where even the most basic cursory examination proves it (or rather, what you'd presume to be it, because 'it' is undefined) to be scientifically proven wrong and even delberately misleading or faked. And because each rubuttal receives no attempt to scientifically response, it implies to me Zman - or Charismatic - don't actually have any scientific understanding of the reason they give, let alone why it is copiously wrong. So we get that response quoted at the top.
It's frustrating as hell not to have any scientific debate here, but i guess inevitable because even a cursory understanding or wish to understand reveals how wrong the creationist theories are proven to be, so Id works very hard to make sure it's young proponents are unwilling to listen. But if the Vatican can not only allow but endorse evolution, I think that says a lot about theological validity - would God give us brains, free will, curiousity, rationality and not let us use them? I doubt it, even if I am an aetheist.
-
A thought just occurred to me, one that's actually quite fundemental to this argument and yet totally unrelated to science. Intelligent Design is invalid from a religious standpoint, provided one thinks it through.
If ID is in fact true, that is fundemental, irrefutable proof of God. But proof denies faith. Without faith, organized religion and God Himself are nothing. We have never been promised proof of His existance. Indeed, He wishes us to take Him upon faith alone, without proof. Faith is what will in the end save you. Faith is what you are asked to have; no more, no less.
Intelligent Design denies faith. And in denying faith, you deny God.
Who is the greater assault upon Christanity now?
-
Who is the greater assault upon Christanity now?
Catholics?
-
Catholics?
You're speaking to one. Read the thread carefully. You'll also notice that the Roman Catholic church supports evolution, and not ID. You want to be real careful using the terms "Catholic" and "Christian" interchangably.
-
It's abiogenesis the Catholic church objects to, IIRC. Although abiogenesis is still very much an area of experimentation (evolution is more advanced along in the proof gathered and the developed theories), so it's not so controversial.
-
Catholics?
You're speaking to one. Read the thread carefully. You'll also notice that the Roman Catholic church supports evolution, and not ID. You want to be real careful using the terms "Catholic" and "Christian" interchangably.
Technically I'm catholic and christian. >..>
-
If ID is in fact true, that is fundemental, irrefutable proof of God. But proof denies faith. Without faith, organized religion and God Himself are nothing. We have never been promised proof of His existance. Indeed, He wishes us to take Him upon faith alone, without proof. Faith is what will in the end save you. Faith is what you are asked to have; no more, no less.
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
-
ah, the big creation debate, where devout catholics still think that adam was made from dirt
Catholicism has accepted Evolution. It's protties (or americans :p) who are generally more guilty of the creationist fallacy.
(that said: most muslims are fiercely anti-evolution too, and I'm guessing the same goes for most other religions also. Maybe it's being caused by living in the 3rd world? Although the American experience seems to indicate otherwise)
-
This thread is also a living proof of just how creationists, with their completely blind BS arguments, manage to sound as if there really were "a debate".
A creationist says: "well how about transitional fossils and catdogs huh"
Biologist must reply with long and elaborate answer which goes from basics of theories to practical results
Creationist then goes on: "oh huh well what about chicken embryos and blood clotting and eye and wings"
Biologists starts with explaining blood clotting, but is cut short by..
.. creationist who continues with stuff like radiocarbon, a goddamn PILTDOWN MAN, some old thing which has been corrected umpteen times before
Biologist continues with his explanation. He is asked to give proof of some weird transitional fossil [which don't exist unless creationists want them to] about a half-dog half-penguin. Of course, the point that this hypothetical animal would actually disprove evolutionary theories as they are is completely lost somewhere during the fierce "debate" buzzword bombardment.
Biologist: wtf, then continues with explanation.
Creationist declares victory because "durrr, he didn't manage to answer my dumbarse questions"
Then an uninformed dude looks at the debate and goes "ohh he sure raised a lot of questions" and walks away, happy in his ignorance.
It's infuriating.
-
A lot of creationism is based not on disproving evolution, but on relying on the fact that the scientific answers, whilst correct, require some level of concentration and focus to understand. Most people can't be bothered with doing things like concentrating or thinking, after all, that's what scientists are for.
You begin to see the catch 22 situation forming. No-one wants to think about it, except those who are paid to think, and those who are paid to think about it struggle getting the message across to those who are not, because theres an 'explanation' that requires less thought and is therefore more compatible with their lifestyles.
Memes and Science, the Alpha and the Omega :(
-
ah, the big creation debate, where devout catholics still think that adam was made from dirt
Catholicism has accepted Evolution. It's protties (or americans :p) who are generally more guilty of the creationist fallacy.
(that said: most muslims are fiercely anti-evolution too, and I'm guessing the same goes for most other religions also. Maybe it's being caused by living in the 3rd world? Although the American experience seems to indicate otherwise)
I thought it was more the fundamentalist US baptists who pushed it. Certainly Scotland has a fair mix of both Protestants and Catholics, but I've never heard a peep about it here. Although the wee free keep moaning about ferries on Sundays, but they're all hidden away in an island in the far north, so we just ignore them (wee free - presbytarian church. They're the sort of dour faced moany bastards who'd find something to moan about if they were in heaven itself).
-
Firslty, animals don't have the fear of man. That's why carnivores like sharks, alligators, cheetahs, etc attack man (because we're fragile & slow prey compared to, say, a gazelle). Would you go out on a walk, unarmed, in the middle of the African plains?
Actually, you would be reasonably safe doing that. Most carnivores do fear people. The ones that don't are either ones that do not come in contact with people often enough to develop such a fear (sharks) or just aren't that bright. The documented instances of attacks upon humans tend to point to two possiblities: we should stop poking the animal with a stick (whether we realized we were or not is, unfortunately, irrevelant; the animal doesn't much care if you think you're harrassing it, all it cares about is that it thinks you're harrassing it) or the animal was desperate enough that it took the first available prey to come along.
Although an excellent argument exists that they just ignore us because we taste bad. According to the societies which both practiced cannablism and have been studied in detail, human meat tastes like pork. Flyblown, rancid pork that's been left sitting in the dirt for week. As correlation it should be noted that most attacks on humans by predators end with one or two bites, and the human is not actually consumed.
Missed this earlier, but I want to come back and say I think you're wrong here. Animals that have been in contact with man usually will have learnt to be scared due to our ability to, well, kill or hurt them and outthink them in doing so. And smaller animals will be naturally fearful of an apex predator (which we really are), and in particular any form of herbivore will have an evolved 'flight' response to a reasonable sized predator. However, animals which we have not hurt before (i.e. have no experience base to fear us), or which we are not a physical theat to, are not afraid of us. Take your average silverback - it is not afraid to challenge human encroachers onto its territory. The likes of the Great White Whale more or less ignore us (because we're no threat to them). Predators can attack humans - take a dingo (or any carnivore) stealing a baby (babies and children are good prey - they are easy to kill and carry; usually it just take a shake to snap the neck for a large-ish predator). Or even any of the people who've climbed into tiger or whatnot cages at zoos and been killed. Even my brothers hamster will bite me (little bastard!). There is most certainly no universally protective 'fear of God' put into modern animals to stop them attacking people, which is what the implication was - and i doubt God would only install a fear of humanity that only worked on certain animals at certain situations.
Sorry to go back 4 pages, BTW, but figured I should mention is.
-
and the God squad has given up again... :(
that or the local highschool hasn't let out yet... (even :( er)
-
Actually, Australia is an excellent example of what happens when most prey are cut off from the threat of humanity, and, indeed, how quickly humanity can have an effect once it appears.
-
Fundamentalists who follow the argument of "Evolution is false -> science is flawed and hence is evil" should not be allowed to use the fruits of other theoretical, scientific branches.
Solid state physics for starters, that mucking about with atoms and electrons clearly was not meant to be used by men, it must be the work of Satan. So, no semiconductor devices = no computers = no internet for creationists.
The web would be a much happier place....
-
Oz also strikes me as a very good example of how a survival-aiding mutation can cause evolutionary development, namely in the rabbits developing a resistance to the Myxomatosis introduced to try and kill them off, and this resistance spreading across the population.
Although obviously evolution (very little in reality) doesn't require a catastrophe-type event for the species to occur to have beneficial mutations (lest I risk encouraging one of the fundamental mistakes I saw being made earlier). The physical isolation of Oz is also quite neat in demonstrating convergent evolution and dispelling the myth of design - namely that you see animals that are just as well adapted as those in the rest of the world, but using a different body 'design' such as the kangaroos hop thanks to millions of years of isolation (why would God make 2 designs of animals? Wouldn't he just make a perfect design?).
-
Genesis 1:16:
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Therefore the moon isn't actually reflecting light, it's creating it; and the sun isn't a star.
That is all.
-
This thread is also a living proof of just how creationists, with their completely blind BS arguments, manage to sound as if there really were "a debate".
Which is why a sensible tactic is to go on the offensive and show the flaws in creationism first. After just 3 threads on the subject you may have noticed that no one is brave enough to even mention ID and Charismatic took steps to actually distance creationism from ID :D
We're not doing that on this thread cause quite frankly the discussion would be over if even one of us did. Any one of the 7 or 8 of us answering ZmaN and Charismatic's posts could easily raise so many flaws in the creationist model that we doubt they'd ever come back and the thread would be over.
We're not trying to win this argument. We're simply sustaining it in the hope that certain people will see that you can believe in evolution and christianity at the same time.
-
Genesis 1:16:
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Therefore the moon isn't actually reflecting light, it's creating it; and the sun isn't a star.
That is all.
Well, obviously you're not meant to take that bit literally. But you are meant to take the bit about a vast flood covering the earth to 20 foot over the highest mountain, leaving absolutely no trace in history, somehow failing to wipe out millions of fish and bird, with every land animal on earth (including penguins and sloths) held in a boat about twice the size of the Titanic and crewed by eight managing to survive on the denuded apocalyptic post-flood landscape, covered in sediment strata that have managed to break carbon dating, sort plants and pollen into climatological order, raised heavier animals above lighter ones and turned their bones into rock in record time) very seriously. But not the bit about the flat earth immobile in space and created in 6 days, about 6,000 years ago. Or are you? I get so mixed up.
-
About 15 minutes until that webcast starts. Time make some tea and get tuned in :nod:
(Unless I miscalculated the time difference)
-
somehow failing to wipe out millions of fish and bird, with every land animal on earth (including penguins and sloths) held in a boat about twice the size of the Titanic and crewed by eight managing to survive on the denuded apocalyptic post-flood landscape
And also one of those animals (termites) typically only eats wood, while another (carpenter ants) will only make their nests in wood. Both of them can do enough damage to actually sink a wooden ship if they have enough time to do it.
And with crap-"theories" like ID getting so popular, it is little wonder why people are so afraid of the chinese catching up to them. You don't see them teaching religion as science (or psuedo-science as science).
-
Glass jars... I'd be more concerned with the beavers personally, they'll want to give those teeth a workout sooner or later.
-
The likes of the Great White Whale more or less ignore us (because we're no threat to them).
I think that someone is trying to kill me
Infecting my blood and destroying my mind
No man of the flesh could ever stop me
The fight for this fish is a fight to the death
White whale - holy grail
What remorseless emperor commands me
I no longer govern my soul
I am completely immersed in darkness
As I turn my body away from the sun
White whale - holy grail
Split your lungs with blood and thunder
When you see the white whale
Break your backs and crack your oars men
If you wish to prevail
This ivory leg is what propels me
Harpoons thrust in the sky
Aim directly for his crooked brow
And look him straight in the eye
White whale - holy grail
-
About 15 minutes until that webcast starts. Time make some tea and get tuned in :nod:
(Unless I miscalculated the time difference)
It's about an hour away.
-
Glass jars... I'd be more concerned with the beavers personally, they'll want to give those teeth a workout sooner or later.
bugger the beavers, what about the tigers? Not much point worrying about holes in the boat when you don't have a leg to stand on.
Looks like i'll miss that webcast; it'll be on when I'm driving home. ****. Let me know if there are interesting highlights.
-
Ah crap, I forgot GMT doesn't care about summer time, so it's two hours behind now instead of one :p Well ok, strictly speaking it's just GMT and we're the ones ahead by two hours. Guess I can drink the tea anyway though, and eat dinner while this goes on instead.
-
I originally didn't meant to post this, but I like some humour while waiting for a response from either Charismatic or Zman :D
(http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c189/LtCannonfodder/c7d94d92.jpg)
Inspired by you guys, keep up the good work.
-
[Indy]It belongs in a museum![/Indy] Real nice :lol:
[Edit] Webcast is running now, nothing happening yet though.
-
And with crap-"theories" like ID getting so popular, it is little wonder why people are so afraid of the chinese catching up to them. You don't see them teaching religion as science (or psuedo-science as science).
"Three quarters of the American population literally believe in religious miracles. The numbers who believe in the devil, in resurrection, in God doing this and that - it's astonishing. These numbers aren't duplicated anywhere else in the industrial world. You'd have to maybe go to mosques in Iran or do a poll among old ladies in Sicily to get numbers like this. Yet this is the American population."
--Noam Chomsky
-
Just watched the webcast, and wow. That guy knows how to do a lecture. Funny, interesting, to the point, and pretty much game, set and match against creationism for anyone possessing the mental capacity for scepticism. And of course, bonus points for comparing Bush to an ape, even if it's kinda old.
-
:) Yep. I enjoyed it. Been a long time since I've listened to a good scientific lecture :)
-
Only bad thing is that the people who really needed to see it, probably didn't.
-
Only bad thing is that the people who really needed to see it, probably didn't.
I wanted to see it and bloody missed it, sniff. Any copies?.
-
It'll be available for on-demand viewing within 24 hours. Or so says the website.
-
Yay!
That's lunch tomorrow sorted then, hopefully. I lost the website link the miasma of this thread.
-
On page 8 somewhere if I remember right.
-
Excellent. I had a peek at their messageboard, and lo and behold there is a creationist making an incredibly vapid and nonsensical arguement in the first 3 posts. Gah. I despair, I really do. Still, I suppose at least he watched, even if he didn't actually understand it.
-
Actually that was there before the lecture started :rolleyes:
-
Oh. Wow. The creationists on their board are as ignorant about evolution as ours. They even brought up the big bang as evidence against evolution, just like ours... is there a handbook or something that these guys follow that tells them how to most effectively ruin any chance of being taken seriously? And the bible doesn't count, as we've already established that it does not actually contradict evolution.
Ah well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Better get to bed anyway, one last workday before the easter holiday (guess that's one perk of religion... days off!), and have to get up at 5am for it.
-
Am I the only one who thinks about physically damaging these people when they start saying such nonsense?
-
Am I the only one who thinks about physically damaging these people when they start saying such nonsense?
Yeah, but that'd only reinforce them - they want to be martyr-types, and their arguement is all about hot air and posturing. You need to cooly display the vast amount of evidence the supports evolution and discredits their theories. They won't listen, whatever you do (and there's me thinking faith was meant to be examined and questioned - honestly, that is), so what you need to do is present it to neutrals, people who honestly don't know about it (i.e. have not been pre-fed propaganda) and hence can be convinced by simple rational reasoning.
-
Am I the only one who thinks about physically damaging these people when they start saying such nonsense?
Yeah, but that'd only reinforce them - they want to be martyr-types, and their arguement is all about hot air and posturing. You need to cooly display the vast amount of evidence the supports evolution and discredits their theories. They won't listen, whatever you do (and there's me thinking faith was meant to be examined and questioned - honestly, that is), so what you need to do is present it to neutrals, people who honestly don't know about it (i.e. have not been pre-fed propaganda) and hence can be convinced by simple rational reasoning.
But do neutrals exist anymore?
-
But do neutrals exist anymore?
Should do. Everyone starts neutral, after all, they just have to be convinced one way of the other.
-
Oh. Wow. The creationists on their board are as ignorant about evolution as ours. They even brought up the big bang as evidence against evolution, just like ours... is there a handbook or something that these guys follow that tells them how to most effectively ruin any chance of being taken seriously? And the bible doesn't count, as we've already established that it does not actually contradict evolution.
Ah well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Better get to bed anyway, one last workday before the easter holiday (guess that's one perk of religion... days off!), and have to get up at 5am for it.
well, if the ones over there are as bad as ours, i suggest we enlighten them. I'm already starting:
"Darwin - decent theory, first one to "develop" that third arm so we can pick our nose and drive at the same time gets a prize!"
Ok, sure. However, Ill need complete control over the entire population of the world, so that those who show the beginings of a third arm can be mated together, regardless of their preference of mate. Surely, the concept of "Love" can take a back seat until everyone has the desired third arm.Oh, and Ill also need the authority to exterminate anyone, even children of any age, whos genetic material, if propagated, would not contribute to the desired third arm.
"Additionally, your grand sweeping statements regarding the mathematical odds against our astoundingly ideal and apparently unique life-supporting position in the universe are once again merely ignoring the unbearable (to your positition) facts.
If one calculates the mathematical probabilities even some of the most fundamental "stages" or mutations that evolutionary theory relies on, even ignoring the initial origins problem, one is left in no doubt that evolution is proven almost hillariously impossible."
yes, the chances of any ONE SPECIFIC evolutionary path are EXTREMELY SMALL. HOWEVER, the chance of ANY evolutionary path is very high. Confused? Heres an example:
Lets call the evolutionary path that led to the world today EP#1. the chances of life following that evolutionary path are almost absurdly small.
However, EP#1 is not the only way to go. what about EP#2, in which the Neanderthals whiped us out instead of the other way around? How about EP#3, in which some other organism took dominance? Or EP#4, in which the dominant primate was one with prehensile toes and a tail? Or EP#42, in which Earth was completely unsutiable for life, but life instead evolved on another planet in the universe that happened to be just right for life? The different paths are infinite in number, and each adds a small amount to the probablility of life.
in conclusion, its not that our life somehow beat huge odds against there BEING life, its that our VERSION of life won the evolutionary jackpot and edged out all those other equally improbable might-have-beens.
EDIT: and now the evolutionists are flaming me.
"We all believe in the big bang. But not 4000 years ago. Your priests/Idols are in error and are leading you astray to have power over your humanity and income. You must give Money to your cult/church. Try free, logical thinking, you may yet be free to respect the rest of humanity, instead of thinking others who do not think as you do are disposable heritics. May your creator/priest be with you."
"Your bible stated the earth was flat! Your kin murdered honest people who contradicted this dictat! Did your priests carry out scientific experiments to defend these honest men/ heretics? No! you just killed the curious or more inteligent on account of their "herisay" Please give up this debate as you have FA to realisticly to put forward in the name of humanity/common sense."
Please read what I say before replying to it. I never stated once that I believe the "young earth" idea, or any of the obviously wrong statements made in the Old Testament. I have reconsiled my beliefs with science, and I am trying NOT to destroy, ignore, or modify any existing science, but merely to enlighten those whose religious beliefs have clouded their judgement (the Creationists).
Honestly, the instant I say that I am Christian, I am attacked by people blaming me for things my ancestors did based on ideas i do not believe. You people disgust me almost as much as the creationists do.
The worst thing to do in a war is to start shooting at your allies.
EDIT AGAIN: At least he appologized. No harm done.
-
hwere is this, someone link them here, we need some more life in this thread.
-
Someone have the link to the on-demand webcast?
-
Jesus Christ, the suspense is killing me. WHERE ARE THE BOOK PAGES? Don't make me wait until next week's episode!!!
-
I think I proverbially put the final nail in the coffin here...
Pity too, I was actually able to think up both a counter-argument and a neutralization of it within twenty minutes of posting.
-
we need more creationists here, it's only fun when we are slightly outnumbered.
-
That situation kinda makes me want to slit my wrists.
-
we need more creationists here, it's only fun when we are slightly outnumbered.
First, no one needs more Creationists. They just mean that many fewer people that actually understand anything of importance ;)
Secondly, I think that's the problem. It only takes so long for a lone creationist to realize that we derive amusement from their idocy and to stop posting. Unfortunately it makes them feel picked on, which reinforces their misconception that there is some conspiracy to keep them down which in turn reinforces their beliefs. I'll admit though, I'm a little ticked at Zman for his literally days of promises that he'd post excerpts from this book of his only to not ever get them up. Maybe he realized they wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny that we were throwing at similar "evidence", which would be great because it may mean he's realizing it wasn't as true has he had believed. Or maybe he just realized that we weren't joking with him, or he got intimidated and gave up. But whatever it was, I'm ticked off at the repeated promises of it being just around the corner never to materialize.
-
we need more creationists here, it's only fun when we are slightly outnumbered.
First, no one needs more Creationists. They just mean that many fewer people that actually understand anything of importance ;)
Secondly, I think that's the problem. It only takes so long for a lone creationist to realize that we derive amusement from their idocy and to stop posting. Unfortunately it makes them feel picked on, which reinforces their misconception that there is some conspiracy to keep them down which in turn reinforces their beliefs. I'll admit though, I'm a little ticked at Zman for his literally days of promises that he'd post excerpts from this book of his only to not ever get them up. Maybe he realized they wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny that we were throwing at similar "evidence", which would be great because it may mean he's realizing it wasn't as true has he had believed. Or maybe he just realized that we weren't joking with him, or he got intimidated and gave up. But whatever it was, I'm ticked off at the repeated promises of it being just around the corner never to materialize.
I think I might have scared him off by asking for the title and author of it. Presumably he got it from his church or something.
Kind of glad, though. How annoying would it be to have to quote off a scan?
-
I think I might have scared him off by asking for the title and author of it. Presumably he got it from his church or something.
Kind of glad, though. How annoying would it be to have to quote off a scan?
I guarantee it was 'Of Pandas or People' or whatever that toilet-paper grade material is called.
-
I think I might have scared him off by asking for the title and author of it. Presumably he got it from his church or something.
Kind of glad, though. How annoying would it be to have to quote off a scan?
I guarantee it was 'Of Pandas and People' or whatever that toilet-paper grade material is called.
(I think I mentioned that exact book as an example of how ID is creationism in all but name)
That always kind of amused me; the Pandas' thumb is a great example for evolution, precisely because it's not really a thumb per se but an evolved feature (a co-opted sesamoid; something which fulfills another purpose in other bears) to fulfill a function. i.e. if there was an Intelligent Designer, the Pandas thumb shows he/she/it wasn't a very good one or they'd have a proper thumb-finger.
EDIT;
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=4298; i'll just quote the last paragraph
[q]Science has proved enormously successful in advancing our understanding of the world, and young people are entitled to learn about scientific knowledge, including evolution. They also have a right to learn how science advances, and that there are, of course, many things that science cannot yet explain. Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various religious beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs.[/q]
-
Yep I agree wholeheartedly. I think there was another quote I read somewhere that summed it up for me.
"Being open-minded is fine. Science is all about being open-minded. However you shouldn't be so open minded that your brain falls out."
:lol:
-
Here's MY theory of "intelligent Design":
God did the big bang, everything else (including evolution) just HAPPENED!!
DO NOT TRY AND FIND ANY "HIDDEN MEANING" IN THIS OTHERWISE :snipe: OR THIS IF I'M NOT IN A GOOD MOOD :headz:
-
Here's MY theory of "intelligent Design":
God did the big bang, everything else (including evolution) just HAPPENED!!
DO NOT TRY AND FIND ANY "HIDDEN MEANING" IN THIS OTHERWISE :snipe: OR THIS IF I'M NOT IN A GOOD MOOD :headz:
So what 'did' God?
-
The hanging light above Bosch's head.
-
The hanging light above Bosch's head.
This could make this thread so much more fun!
...then Bosch woke up! He went to the toilet and when he flushed...
-
The on-demand webcast is now up (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4400&tip=1) for anyone who wanted to watch but couldn't. Enjoy :)
-
...then Bosch woke up! He went to the toilet and when he flushed...
...a Shivan popped into the bathroom and began to...
W00T for TAS
-
well, I hearb, relectently, declare victory, I was so hopeing they would try harder.
-
well, I hearb, relectently, declare victory, I was so hopeing they would try harder.
No, there is not nor shall there ever be 'victory'. While we may sit here thinking we provided a good arguement against ZmaN and Charasmatic's ludicrous assertions, it doesn't matter in the slightest to them. Regardless of what we say, ZmaN and Charasmatic don't want to change their opinion, they're sitting in front of their moniters, reading the calm and collected prose of Kara and Aldo, thinking 'damn, these idiots just don't get it'. The fact of the matter is, Creationists and ID Proponents are stubborn and unyielding in the face of pretty much everything. So convinced are they of their own intellectual superiority, that they will laugh at anything we present them with, no matter how logical and downright obvious. And IMO, that's totally cool in my book.
They've gone about their business because they think they've got all the answers, and I say let 'em be. As the old saying goes; to each his own... or something like that... i'm terrible with old sayings...
-
...a Shivan popped into the bathroom and began to...
:wtf: What the ****ing hell?
-
...then Bosch woke up! He went to the toilet and when he flushed...
...a Shivan popped into the bathroom and began to...
W00T for TAS
.....wipe bosch's arse for him.....
-
So we have an admin encouraging spam, that's new........
-
...then Bosch woke up! He went to the toilet and when he flushed...
...a Shivan popped into the bathroom and began to...
W00T for TAS
.....wipe bosch's arse for him.....
And then Mr.T came out and punched Bosch in the face. Bosch's teeth fell out since he hasn't been drinking much milk. Upon seeing this, Mr.T kicked Bosch in the balls. But to Mr.T's surprise, Bosch has no balls.
-
he in fact has cubes, which only raised more uneasy questions...
-
and a painful whelp on Mr. T's foot, fool! Meanwhile, on the other side of the station...
And of course the admins are in on this. They are among the crew that started the original TAS.
-
and a painful whelp on Mr. T's foot, fool! Meanwhile, on the other side of the station...
Face is seen hitting on Flight Mechanic Cindy McLaren (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,33992.0.html), while Murdoch and Hannibal are trying to attach a spiky battering ram on to the van.
-
No, there is not nor shall there ever be 'victory'. While we may sit here thinking we provided a good arguement against ZmaN and Charasmatic's ludicrous assertions, it doesn't matter in the slightest to them. Regardless of what we say, ZmaN and Charasmatic don't want to change their opinion, they're sitting in front of their moniters, reading the calm and collected prose of Kara and Aldo, thinking 'damn, these idiots just don't get it'.
True but they can't claim to have looked at all the evidence next time. That was Charismatic's assertion after all, that he had looked at all the evidence fairly and objectively and come to a different conclusion from me. This thread pretty much proves that to be as wrong as we all already knew it was.
-
and we did win this battle, do you see any creationists pretending to converse with us anymore, no, they relented.
now it's not to say we won any wars here, but the battle clearly went to use, not that this was a glorius victory or anything, but it was a victory.
-
True but they can't claim to have looked at all the evidence next time. That was Charismatic's assertion after all, that he had looked at all the evidence fairly and objectively and come to a different conclusion from me. This thread pretty much proves that to be as wrong as we all already knew it was.
I've always found it best to be gentle when pointing out that somebody is mistaken, it makes a bitter pill easier to swallow. :nod:
I've always preferred 'never argue with a man who knows he's right' anyhow. :)
-
More evidence;
Fossils fill gap in human lineage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4900946.stm)
African fish leaps for land bugs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4902784.stm) (explaining the move from water)
I can't find the story, but there was another one; they recovered a sample from the first known Aids death (1958), and comparing it to other samples they discovered it fit exactly within the predicted SIV-HIV evolutionary 'chain'.
-
and a painful whelp on Mr. T's foot, fool! Meanwhile, on the other side of the station...
Face is seen hitting on Flight Mechanic Cindy McLaren (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,33992.0.html), while Murdoch and Hannibal are trying to attach a spiky battering ram on to the van.
...which was being prepared to knock down a door leading to...
-
... a giant cabinet of horse tranquilizers, beause Mr.T will be very angry once he realizes he's on a spaceship. Suddenly, ...
-
I've always found it best to be gentle when pointing out that somebody is mistaken, it makes a bitter pill easier to swallow. :nod:
I agree in general but subtly is completely lost on some people :)
Besides when someone roars into a thread screaming at the top of their lungs that you're wrong gentleness would be viewed as a sign of weakness and of validity in their side of the argument.
-
It's a shame this thread has been wrecked, it really is.
-
Another one will come along sooner or later. I doubt this is the last time we've heard dissent on this matter.
-
It didn't get wrecked; it just evolved. We have its complete fossil records to prove it, too.
-
Come on, we had countless evolution threads, and they all end up the same.
It didn't get wrecked; it just evolved. We have its complete fossil records to prove it, too.
Instant thread win.
-
African fish leaps for land bugs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4902784.stm) (explaining the move from water)
Gotta be the voice of dissent on that one - sounds like the guys haven't really looked into their fossil record too well. At the time, there was nothing worth catching on land - certainly nothing that was both slow enough to catch and big enough to make it a worthwiule snack for something the size of Tiktaalik or Acanthostega.
There are more likely lures for getting out of the water, and evolving limbs specifically to move on land would have been extremely difficult. The first tetrapod limbs were probably exaptations for moving around increasingly clogged shallow water estuaries, with the lure to getting onto land more likely to be isolated pools for egg laying rather than food.
-
... a giant cabinet of horse tranquilizers, beause Mr.T will be very angry once he realizes he's on a spaceship. Suddenly, ...
... Josef Stalin appeared clinging to the starbord bow of the NTF Iceni....
-
It didn't get wrecked; it just evolved. We have its complete fossil records to prove it, too.
The thread was created by aldo_14. It evolved, it rebelled. Sometimes the thread even think it's on topic. ...and it has a plan.
-
I agree that was thee longest page ever (page 6). I dont have time ATM to read and reply to 6+ pages of really long ass technical replys yet. Tomorrow, i may have some time. Expect a long awaited reply then. Sorry for the wait.
--work. Meh.
Ephili
-
Excellent. i have tomorrow off :drevil:
-
That webcast was very interesting. Good to see something that informative available.
-
Update: It may take me till the late afternoon to get back here. Central time, probably at 4. Watch your GMT and come! Tickets are at the door.
Im glad i spurred a whole 6 pages of stuff with a few posts. Hehe.
Plan on one freaking hudge 'quote & reply' styled post. Quoteing nearly everyone who spoke something at me or replyed to me.. that i can answer, sence i posted my report. Imagine how hard and long it will take.
-
Update: It may take me till the late afternoon to get back here. Central time, probably at 4. Watch your GMT and come! Tickets are at the door.
Im glad i spurred a whole 6 pages of stuff with a few posts. Hehe.
Plan on one freaking hudge 'quote & reply' styled post. Quoteing nearly everyone who spoke something at me or replyed to me.. that i can answer, sence i posted my report. Imagine how hard and long it will take.
I'm looking forward to your response. :)
I'm kicking myself for not being around during the initial debate, but I suppose it doesn't matter. I feel that it went quite smoothly (considering) and it was quite enlightening.
If/when the debate starts up again, I just want to suggest that it might be better if we have an equal number of people debating for each side. That way (I think) it might be a little more fair, and it ought to keep down the number of replies (thus making the debate easier to follow). Of course, this is just my own thought and whatever you all decide to do is fine.
Oh, and if anyone's wondering: I'm agnostic, I accept evolution as fact, and I go by the scientific method.
I probably won't actually do any debating, because I don't think that my speech skills are anywhere near good enough. Karajorma and Aldo are the best at debating, in my opinion.
-
I think the two arguing creationists should go read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
In particular, here're some important points that are always repeatedly brought up in these debates.
On what a science really is (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html):
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
On abiogenesis and other off-topic things:
Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
There is no controversy:
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001).
... and ZmaN should listen to Feynman:
"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it."
-
It will be very interesting to see how Charis is responding to information gathered solely from the reasearch results of professional scientists, i.e. really smart people TM. Because you simply don't find people of that intellect on the creationist side (the only exception being if they comment on areas outside their professional expertise; i.e. I - a computer science graduate - can commentate on biological science using the research of biologists, but I can't claim any original theory of my own to be better unless I switch disciplines).
-
-Page 5- PART 1
[/color]
Ok, sence part 2 will take just as long, *sigh*, il devide page 5 responces, into a few sections. Here is part 1.
Ok, one page at a time. Finding and reading and thinking of what to say, processing all that stuff is hard work. I may do a second section tonight. Im done for now.
First off: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp
There is evidence supporting Evolution, and Creationism. You comeing up with your Own conclusion, is not a fact itself, it is your opinion....
Umh.. can you provide any evidence supporting Creationism that is not totally permeated with Christian beliefs or rather beliefs of any of the 'Abrahamic religions' (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) which all are more or less just different aspects of the same religion.
Well first of all. Creationism is a beleif based on the Bible and certian scientific facts that coincide with (the) biblical interpetation(s).
Charismatic: I'm Christian, and yet I find literal creationism, ID, and the overall refusal to accept science because of fear of it breaking one's system of beliefs to be a sickening perversion of the religion. Nowhere in any version of the bible that I've ever read does Jesus say "Thou shall not seek to explain the world around you". Nowhere is it prohibited to explore your origins without looking at a book - written in the language of man - to confirm that any explanation you present is considered to be "safe". Those restrictions have come about, throughout Christian era, by the church or by individuals who draw their power and influence from their established power over beliefs.
I am not refusing to accept science because of fear of breaking my beleif system. I know that my beleifs can be explained and proven in part, as yours can in part. I know in-the-end, there is a explination and answer for everything, but right now we do not have all the facts or w\e to answer everythign now.
Now, to actually address some of that giant orange blob up there.
First of all i am telling you all right now: Stop picking on Zman. Leave him alone. I see alot of flameing and hostile remarks. This is turning into a brawl and i wont have it. I will report posts or this topic if it continues. Be mature people, and that does not mean, have a fancy perfect reply. And godam it, i just lost my origional post. Have to do it all over again. *sigh* lost a ton of stuff.
Zman seems to be a beginning christian, yes, the way he portreys his thoughts on the matter may seem a bit immature. I do reconize he has stated what he knows out of 'it just is' and not 'fact'. Without the best of explinations. No need to jump on him for it.
I am a Christian. Have been all my life. I beleive i am, what some call a 'spiritually mature'. I cant spell worth **** so forgive me.
I'm trying really hard to not flame the 14-year-old defending the 16-year-old for his beliefs, regardless of who these people are, on the grounds of "spiritual maturity". This is a mature community, particularly in the people who have responded thus far, so maturity really shouldn't be an issue one way or another. "Spiritual" maturity is a function of overall maturity, as being mature (not necessarily the same as acting mature) is a prerequisite to being able to do the soul-searching needed to come to a definitive stance on one's spirituality. However, there's a certain irony here that I just had to highlight.
Sofar, many renowned members and regular members here, have claimed several things. I will try to recall a few offhand:
1) Creationists do not know bare anything about Evolution, natural selection, ID etc.
2) We are foolish and blindly attack, and dont know what it is were using to attack or what we are attacking. Something like that, lol.
3) Creationists have no evidence supporting or disproveing evolution or creationism. Just blind faith and emotions, is what is leading us. What our parents taught us 'evolution is bad'.
4) That ALL Creationists are Ignorant
5) I dont know where that chicken thing came from either
6) W\e i lost a few.. sue me.
7) That, you guys like posting topics like this, so the few Xians that speak up, will try to attack it and fail and look stupid haveing not supportive material for their arguement or w\e. Like rats in a cage. You ****ing call That mature? Meh to you all.
Kara, and several memebers have said many thigns which are discriminatory. I beleive the forum rules was agienst being discriminatory. You all are not giveing our side a chance. You all are flaming and attacking creationists and christians, just as quick as you claim we attack you guys. Some of you are acting childish. Act like the mature HLPites you are all susposed to be. Think before you post. 2\3'rds of the posts here have been a "yeah-what-he-said, you-all-suck" kind of replys. Spam in other topics.
That list is pretty accurate, yes, but they are all valid points (at least, I've never seen someone who has bucked even one of the trends). Of course, I don't know what 5 and 6 are refering to other than that idiotic chicken thing that was mentioned earlier. The point is, any piece of "evidence" thrown out that isn't from the Bible is equally shoddy. If you find something that's actually a valid point, bring it here, please. But everything that's ever been mentioned has been shredded like tissue paper the moment someone gets a big enough chunk of it to look it up. And that which comes from the bible, well, that gets in to another debate that I'll get back to later.
I have done my own research to an extent, last year, on Evolution VS. Creationism. Tho my knoloage of Evolution and Creation is limited, i do know the basis for both, and a good deal about Evolution, Natural Selection, Big Bang Theory, stuff about fossils, and yes, i do know a general bit about Inteligent Design. So, because you all want someone to pick on, and fight agienst, its me. Leave Zman alone, and talk to me. If anyone is more qualified to take a stand for Creationism, agienst all you pplz, it would be me; as no one else is standing up but me and Zman. My research paper, which i will post sunday night, is 6 Word pages, dubble spaced, 12 font, rockwell. I spent a good deal of time in Creation Vs Evolution books.
Again, and don't take this the wrong way, you're not really mature enough in your educational progression to really comprehend everything you claim you do there. I'll go ahead and warn you, though, that posting your essay will likely only bring out more criticism than will help you. And here's why: you sound like you based most of it off of Creation vs. Evolution debate books in particular, rather than books on each one individually; those sources are notoriously weak. I hope I'm wrong on this, but you haven't necessarily advanced far enough in school to know how to tell a good source from a not so good one. And that's not personal, it's just a fact of life.
I know that already. Well, few fully understand most every aspect of the line of beleife they claim to beleive. Few creationists know all the nacks, and few evolutionists know the same. I may have not advanced to tell a good soruce from a bad one, but atleast i have one thusfar. Correct?
KARA, said "See the thing isn't that I THINK evolution is right. I've listened to the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is correct based on all the available evidence? Can you make the same claim?"
There is evidence supporting Evolution, and Creationism. You comeing up with your Own conclusion, is not a fact itself, it is your opinion. You have to think to find a conclusion. Analize the data. So you are saying "I THINK" evolution is right, and creationism is wrong. Your doing exactly what he is, except your saying you are right and he is wrong. Hyprocrite. I have listened to evidence for both, and i have come up with my own conclusion which i think is right. I, neither, can say i have a fact clear cut final peice of undesputable evidence, because God himself hasent come down to earth and showed himself off to the masses yet. So i cant say i have Physical God as physical evidence proveing my case. So, neither can be proved.
There's a difference in thinking evolution is right because it is the best explanation among many based on phenomenon that can be observed, that predicts behaviors in observable experiments, and that can be used to better understand the perils we risk in our actions every day in the world, and in having faith that what you read in a book/heard from your parents/heard from your pastor. The former is testable. It is usable. It is supportable by a literal multitude of evidence. The latter is supported by a book and what someone said. If you can't see the difference, then there is really no point in arguing as the significance (or lack thereof) of any arguments made will be totally lost on you. Choosing to have faith in your beliefs is not wrong, far from it. But telling us that we are wrong because we do not share your faith is very wrong and it tends to make people mad.
I agree and will come up with the best answers i can. Keep in mind my head is pounding with a whole page worht of crap to reply to- on top of looking up for info on the internet, cauze i dont have my trusty bible Or evolution vs creation books handy.
You said "best explanation". Best explination according to who? A explination to fit what you want to beleive, and your beleifs and unrealized biases. Everyone is biased at some degree agienst something. I am not saying you are wrong because you do not share my faith.
ALDO ALSO, said "What, the earth created in 6 days, on a flat circle suspended ontop of foundations and with a curved roof (from which God 'poured' the great flood) book of Genesis?
I think, considering he is a Christian, you should consider the meaning of 'allegory'. Because if you're suggesting the Bible can be taken entirely as literal truth..... pi=3."
The earth was created in 6 days. Allegory? Well, only if you concider the meaning of "Literal". Im suggesting, some of the bible can be taken figuratively, literaly, and alegory. Many scholers and learned historians reconise the bible, expecially the Old Testament, as a Historical book. They even have confirmed its accuracy. From the text of the Old Testament, most of it, is history of the people, families, and certian events. Historical Document. Proof. When it gets to Genesis, about the beginning, and the arc, it may get a bit fuzy for the historical refrences, as, no one was there to prove or disprove or witness anything, about 'in the beginning'. Well, besides that, look at the worldwide flood. Several peoples ancient history tells of a great flood, covering the mountians. The Noahainac Flood (sp?). Canopes of water from the sky\space w\e area came crashing down, and at the same time, water from under the earth, came crashing through the earths crust and it filled from the bottom too. Meh, more later. Tired as ****.
The historical relevance of the Old Testament is really shaky at best. Yes, it can be shown that there may be correlations between it and historical records from other civilizations, i.e. the famine of Egypt, and to a lesser extent some of the wars and events well after Exodus. However, Genesis, where this problem with the old testement lies, is in no such way a "historical" document. Every civilization has its own creation myths ("Where did we come from"), flood myths ("We settled near a river and one day if flooded really heavily. Because we're in the bronze age, we don't know what conditions are like 20 miles away, therefore since our worldview was flooded the entire world must have been flooded too!") and similar. That doesn't mean that any one of them was right, or that they colloberate one another. That requires (gasp!) a leap of faith.
Correct, that is a plausable statement (about the flood). Well, the whole OT is a record, a historical record. Heck, half of it seems to tell each familes family tree linage. Its loaded with 'the son of amar. and he had 3 sons, tomar, riack, ect. And they had.. ect. (I made that last sentence up as an example) The OT tells of the movements of the people, how the weather was doing (famines, ect.) wars, where other peoples and civilations were located. It is a trackbook of the Hebrews, Isralites. Not everything can match up, as a good deal of ancient history does not match up. Jerico was destroyed, and they couldent write about the Isralites passing by. You get my drift. But, lets say there was this boat. And you got on it. And it rained till it covered the mountiantops. And you were on the boat above the mountians, which you could not see anymore. And it rained for 40 More days.. and you have traveled very far, seeing nothing. None of the surronding mountains you knew were around. It woud be safe to say it was a worldwide flood.
The rest I'm not going to break down on a point-by-point as I really feel it would be a) annoying as piss to me and to anyone who reads/tries to respond to me and b) counterproductive. There is a lot, and I mean a lot, in what I haven't quoted that I strongly disagree with or quite frankly can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say, but they are tangental to the creation/evolution debate that we're making central to the debate that is this thread.
Finally, there's just one statement I want to make now so that we don't get in to an argument of interpretation down the line. There are exactly two ways of looking at the bible, particularly the Old Testiment (as it's the one that's most contradictory and causes all of the "contradictions" with science) and those two ways are to either take the whole thing literally, (which fails on pi=3, among other things) or you take the whole thing as being allegorical or at least reiteratively interpreted over hundreds - if not thousands - of generations. There is no middle ground that's defensable.
Various comments about flaming
No one is flaming. There is a difference between saying that someone is wrong and flaming them. ZmaN and yourself are wrong. That is not a flame. At best it's a fact at worst it's an opinion. On the other hand ZmaN has accused pretty much everyone on this thread of having been taken in by Satan's lies in his first post on the subject. Not one person has complained about this. So kindly keep the comments about flames to a minimum.
1) Creationists do not know bare anything about Evolution, natural selection, ID etc.
Again this is not a flame. On three topics on this board I challenged any creationist to explain the Theory of Intelligent Design to me. Not one single person even use the the terms "irreducable complexity", "specified complexity" or "fine tuned universe" which are the 3 pillars of the Intelligent Design philosophy. In the end I had to explain the theory to those who had been arguing in favour of it. Does that not prove that there are people who argue against evolution and yet don't understand ID? In fact Stealth was the only person who ever got what ID was correct and even he failed to explain what predictions could be made from scientific applications of the theory even though he claimed it was scientific.
In arguments against evolution I have heard ridiculous parroted comments such as the chicken one ZmaN used or comments about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or even that evolution is random. This is proof that the people doing the arguing do not understand the theory. All those comments are based on fundemental misunderstandings or gross simplifications of evolutionary theory.
If that is someones argument then it is not a flame to say that they don't understand evolutionary theory. It's a fact. There are arguments you can make that show that you do understand
Truthfully, i have no idea what the hell the 2nd law of thermodimanics is (sp?), but here is a link i scrapped up. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp
7) That, you guys like posting topics like this, so the few Xians that speak up, will try to attack it and fail and look stupid haveing not supportive material for their arguement or w\e. Like rats in a cage. You ****ing call That mature? Meh to you all.
You've basically described the tactics of the Intelligent Design movement. Don't get upset if people have turned them round against you. In every single debate on evolution creationists have sought to attack evolution and put it on the defensive without supplying anything that could replace it. This is in fact the "teach the controversy" strategy they are so happy with. Cause it works. The creationist points out 10 or 12 specious arguments about evolution, all of them provably false and waits for those supporting evolution to either run out of time or have to use explainations that go over the heads of the audience in order to refute them.
However I'm not standing for that tactic. I want to see how well creationists can deal with it when the tables are turned and they are expected to defend their position instead. I don't need to defend evolution. It has a very large amount of evidence and scientific experimentation to back it up. I want to see creationism prove that it has a similar backup. Cause I don't think it does. I think they'll fare even worse because the only defence against the flaws in ID is to fall back and rely on unprovable assertions from the bible or God.
Christianity is a beleif. Facts are facts. Truth is truth. But, some facts, and some truth, are later proven false. The lies are concitered 'hard factual evidence' and are stood on heavily, whilst saying 'now prove that wrong. You cant! Hahah!'. My point: Not every fact you hold now can be concitered completely fact. Some yes, but others no (Speaking to the vast majority of you out there on the opposing side of the debate). Our beleif in the certian way the world was created and managed by God, is a beleif. It is a fact to us, we know it to be true, but our 'fact' is on a different level then the facts you hold. At certian points, they coincide, but not all, as we dont have all the evidence, or all the facts and truth avalible to us. Thats enough of this bit for now. Next person..
Kara, and several memebers have said many thigns which are discriminatory.
I certainly haven't. I've said that people are 100% entitled to their beliefs. However if you're going to post your belief as fact on a public forum you'd better be prepared to defend it. I respect your right to believe differently from me but that doesn't mean I have to respect your belief one iota. If you're wrong I will say that you are wrong. Don't like it. Prove that you are correct.
Good point. I will attempt to.
I have done my own research to an extent, last year, on Evolution VS. Creationism. Tho my knoloage of Evolution and Creation is limited, i do know the basis for both, and a good deal about Evolution, Natural Selection, Big Bang Theory, stuff about fossils, and yes, i do know a general bit about Inteligent Design. So, because you all want someone to pick on, and fight agienst, its me. Leave Zman alone, and talk to me.
If ZmaN posts I will refute his arguments. He doesn't get an easy ride simply because he's young. This is an important debate and I refuse to let someone get away with spouting errant nonesense like that stuff about the chicken just because of their age. If ZmaN isn't old enough to debate the subject he should stay out of it and leave it to those who won't claim youth and inexperience as a shield to defend them. Truth is truth regardless of the age of the person saying it.
Heh, fine. *sticks his toung out at you*
If anyone is more qualified to take a stand for Creationism, agienst all you pplz, it would be me; as no one else is standing up but me and Zman. My research paper, which i will post sunday night, is 6 Word pages, dubble spaced, 12 font, rockwell. I spent a good deal of time in Creation Vs Evolution books.
And how much time in evolution vs creationism books? I suspect that your research will prove to have all been done from biased sources. But we'll see when you post it.
Hours? Heck, probably a good 10+ hours. Well you do have the soruce page avalible to you. Go read reports or reviews about the book. I recall one specifically that was said by several ppl to be unbiased. Last name started with an S i beleive. I dont have time to scroll up..
MARS, said "Is it bad I beleive that God started eveloution (i.e. created man through eveloution)?"
Yes, because that is one of the many runoffs of creationism. It is based on truth and God, but strays to a compromiseable position. God did not say "and he created man to evolve" thus.. he did not. I dont have time not to come up with a good rockhard stronghold now. So dont rail me about this.
So now you are telling Mars that his beliefs are bad? Losing the moral high ground very quickly aren't you?
I guess I did. As I stated, i dont have time to go into that one right now. Think i have enough to deal with maby?
KARA, said "See the thing isn't that I THINK evolution is right. I've listened to the evidence and come to the conclusion that it is correct based on all the available evidence? Can you make the same claim?"
There is evidence supporting Evolution, and Creationism. You comeing up with your Own conclusion, is not a fact itself, it is your opinion. You have to think to find a conclusion. Analize the data. So you are saying "I THINK" evolution is right, and creationism is wrong. Your doing exactly what he is, except your saying you are right and he is wrong. Hyprocrite.
First question is whether ZmaN actually came to his own conclusion or simply was told what to think. Notice that I actually asked that question? Second question is whether he had all the necessary data present to make a fair conclusion. I doubt that either of you will be able to prove that one but I'll wait and see how flawed your arguments on evolution turn out to be. See the thing is if ZmaN didn't reach the conclusion on correct data then he is wrong.
You speak as if everything you say and hold true is impeckable. I laugh at that.
Let me give you an analogy. A blind man steps out into the road because he thinks it is safe to cross. I can see a bus coming towards him. Am I being hypocritical if I say that he was wrong to cross the road? Or am I simply in possession of more facts and better able to what is correct.
Analogy right back at ya man:
A man stands in a liquid. It is dark. He sees it glitter, feels the liquid, and hears it. He says "This is water. Anyone who tells me different is silly and greatly mistaken. Its fact that it is. The sun comes up, and he realises it is not water, but a great lake of apple juice. It feels just like water, sounds like it, looks like it in the dark, but yet its not. He thought he could see the whole picture, the whole thing, but greatly mistaken was he. The glisten didnt prove it was water, or the combination of several observations.
Why apple juice? I couldent come up with another .. word. Meh.
As I've said before I'm willing to bet that when we get to examining your view of evolutionary theory we'll soon discover it is full of errors that prove you don't actually understand it despite your assertions that you do.
All hail the mighty edit ;)
I'll add one thing real quick that I forgot to put in my last post: I know that when someone not experienced with this debate comes around here and makes an anti-evolutionary comment that others who share their beliefs (I count what, 6 semiregulars at this point?) always send PMs of support to the one "fighting the good fight" or whatever you like to call it. While I am glad to know that you support the beliefs of others, I would much rather you express your support publicly than to build up a silent wall of support while leaving the poster to wither in the argument alone. If you actually believe it as strongly as you claim to, get involved in the debate. Go out and find that piece of evidence for your beliefs that none of us have seen yet. Don't hide behind anonymity and make it seem like there's some silent majority who agrees with you.
Heh, Il leave that to Zman, but you do have a good point.
And I for one would go against the world alone on this debate if I had to, that's how strongly I hold the conviction that religion and science have no place intermingling. I don't care if I'm the only one who sees it, but I'm still going to call the whole anti-evolution argument idiotic because, quite frankly, it is.
What led you to that conclusion?
To take a slightly more religous question if I may:
How do you know Christiananity is right btw?
There are thousands if not millions of religeons throughout the world claiming they are right or just as right with similar or completely different views. How can you be so absolutely positive that yours is the right one?
Perhaps because this is what you were brought up with?
Well, in truth, people wont truely beleive in their heart, if they were brought up in a certian teaching. Usualy they tend to disbeleive it, and to put on a show for their parents. Others will be a rebel agienst that perticualr teaching. For one to truely beleive, they need to have some proven truth, evidence, for themselfs to really beleive. Sometimes its a physical fact or feature, other times, its a matter of the heart, or, inner proof. Some beleive cause of how the world is (couldent have hapend without a God to create it, and cause of its beauty). There is not one specific way that Everyone beleivs (or could beleive) the same thing(s).
Realistically, as you claim to have researched evolution and creationism, should you not first study every other religeon and even non-religeon on the planet before you can rightfully claim your conclusions are based on the "right" religeon?
This is the biggest flaw I find with any religeon to be honest.
One does not have to research every religon. And i am not motivated to do such a thing. Analogy.
There is a basket of fruits. You want an apple. you blindly reach in and grab one. Its an apple. you know it is really an apple. Should you search the rest of the basket, even if you have the right one in your hand?
I personaly think that was a great analogy. Yay for me.
For the record (again) I am personally agnostic. I believe more in science and humankind than a god. But don't dismiss the idea of a being we cannot explain. But I do dismiss all religeon on the planet for the simple fact its influenced, written, and interpreted by man (or woman for that matter).
Im likely to get flamed for this. Withhold your flames.
No
First of all i am telling you all right now: Stop picking on Zman. Leave him alone.
No
Yes. :drevil:
That, you guys like posting topics like this, so the few Xians that speak up, will try to attack it and fail and look stupid haveing not supportive material for their arguement or w\e. Like rats in a cage. You ****ing call That mature? Meh to you all.
Mature? Maybe, maybe not. But we (or at least, when I post them, I) post these arguments so that interested parties can see what's happening in the world of biology, geology, palaeontology or whatever. You people highjack them, then you should expect what you get.
Isnt talking about biology, geology, palaeontology or whatever, hijacking in the first place, in certian instances?
You all are not giveing our side a chance.
Of course we're not. Your side is ridiculous. Why should we give a ridiculous idea a chance?
Rediculous according to who? Where is your proof to back that statement up, or your facts that led you to that conclusion? Your side may seem equally rediculous to many christians, such as Zman.
Think before you post.
Do you think we could post these kind of scientific essay posts without thinking? I can't. I could post "Creationism is wrong. That's all." style posts without thinking, but I don't. You do. Stop being a hypocrite.
So should we all.
Spam in other topics.
[/color]
This topic is about Tigtaalik, and the evolution of limbs from fins. You're posting about creationism, thus the spam is yours.
T- what? Im talking half about evolution and half of creationism. So thus its not spam.
There is evidence supporting Evolution, and Creationism.
There's no evidence for creationism.
That's a blanket statement, yes, but one that I've found Rarely have I been forced to stop and think "Hey, that's a good point" anto be 100% true in all these arguments.d never once has a bit of simple research shown that science and evolution cannot provide a good reason for whatever spurious piece of so called evidence the creationists bring up. So, try tp prove me wrong this time, if you think you can, but I'm more than willing to stick m neck out here and say that you wont.
Im still here, biach.
When it gets to Genesis, about the beginning, and the arc, it may get a bit fuzy for the historical refrences, as, no one was there to prove or disprove or witness anything, about 'in the beginning'.
The Earth was there. And once you know how to read it, it tells you all you need to know.
I can read just fine. And how do you read it as? What dose it tell you that it dose not tell me?
-
Wow, the thread lives. An in so many colours...
-
Wow, the thread lives. An in so many colours...
LOL
New Colors?
-
Going to bed now.
A quick cursory scan notes the lack of any scientific rebuttal, beyond a link to a creationist webpage that falls back upon the already-discredited notion of 'irreducable complexity'.
I'd note a few things quickly, though;
[q]
I am not refusing to accept science because of fear of breaking my beleif system. I know that my beleifs can be explained and proven in part, as yours can in part. I know in-the-end, there is a explination and answer for everything, but right now we do not have all the facts or w\e to answer everythign now.[/q]
You mean, you refuse to accept the known facts that are contradicting your belief system, because you're refusing to accept an explanation supported by decades upon decades of supporting evidence because it does precisely that.
[q]
You speak as if everything you say and hold true is impeckable. I laugh at that.[/q]
'Impeccable', actually. And all of those of a scientific dint recognise that science accepts the possibility of disproof - in fact, it's an essential part, and the consistent lack of it (combined with the oppositely large quantity of proof) is what makes evolution regarded as fact. The weakness of your position is that you've already shown you're unwilling to accept the possibility of disproof or contradiction, both in ignoring previous scientific evidence pointed out and in revisiting the same disproven arguements (see below; irreducible complexity link)
[q]Analogy right back at ya man:
A man stands in a liquid. It is dark. He sees it glitter, feels the liquid, and hears it. He says "This is water. Anyone who tells me different is silly and greatly mistaken. Its fact that it is. The sun comes up, and he realises it is not water, but a great lake of apple juice. It feels just like water, sounds like it, looks like it in the dark, but yet its not. He thought he could see the whole picture, the whole thing, but greatly mistaken was he. The glisten didnt prove it was water, or the combination of several observations.[/q]
What a bizarre analogy. The problem is you've missed his point completely; the position of creationism is closer, far closer, to that 'lake of apple juice' bloke, because it flat out ignores a vast amount of observed evidence. So when you claim 'there is evidence to support creationism' a) there isn't (all the cited evidence has been deliberate or accidentally erroneous and scientifically unsound) and b) there is far, far more supporting evolutionary theory. Bear in mind Darwin lived in a very puritan Christian society - how on earth would his theory have been adopted then if it wasn't well supported when he formed it?
[q]Correct, that is a plausable statement (about the flood). Well, the whole OT is a record, a historical record. Heck, half of it seems to tell each familes family tree linage. Its loaded with 'the son of amar. and he had 3 sons, tomar, riack, ect. And they had.. ect. (I made that last sentence up as an example) The OT tells of the movements of the people, how the weather was doing (famines, ect.) wars, where other peoples and civilations were located. It is a trackbook of the Hebrews, Isralites. Not everything can match up, as a good deal of ancient history does not match up. Jerico was destroyed, and they couldent write about the Isralites passing by. You get my drift. But, lets say there was this boat. And you got on it. And it rained till it covered the mountiantops. And you were on the boat above the mountians, which you could not see anymore. And it rained for 40 More days.. and you have traveled very far, seeing nothing. None of the surronding mountains you knew were around. It woud be safe to say it was a worldwide flood.[/q]
Again, we can cite this did not happen because it is scientifically impossible for it to have done so.....already covered, really. A quick glance at the rough area the bible originates from shows it'd be pretty hard to end up 40 feet above the top of (the highest) mountains without the Egyptians even noticing. Mt. Ararat is 16940 ft high - can you really envisage a localised flood rising to over 16980 ft?!
Also, there have been several studies on mitochondrial DNA supporting homo sapiens as being descended from a small group (this would explain the relative lack of human genetic diversity) based in Africa about 25,000 years ago, which would contradict the biblical account.
[q]One does not have to research every religon. And i am not motivated to do such a thing. Analogy.
There is a basket of fruits. You want an apple. you blindly reach in and grab one. Its an apple. you know it is really an apple. Should you search the rest of the basket, even if you have the right one in your hand?
I personaly think that was a great analogy. Yay for me.[/q]
Except in this context, you don't know it's an apple. In fact, there's a lot of things proving that the one next to it is an apple. But you don't want to have to have to look for another apple, you like the non-apple you have because it suits you for whatever reason, so you keep it and convince yourself it is an apple.
It's wrong to characterise evolution as a belief, though. It's no more a belief than, say, gravity or electromagenetism.
[q]
Isnt talking about biology, geology, palaeontology or whatever, hijacking in the first place, in certian instances?[/q]
On a thread about another fossil supporting evolutionary theory? I doubt it. Shovelling in discredited religious ideas in the form of an insult and some - literal - rubbish about chicken DNA is most definately hijacking, and I'd guess (not looking back all those pages) that's BWs' point.
[q]
Rediculous according to who? Where is your proof to back that statement up, or your facts that led you to that conclusion? Your side may seem equally rediculous to many christians, such as Zman.[/q]
It's ridiculous according to the observed scientific evidence. That is, centuries of supporting work, performed from an empirical and unbaised perspective. what is ridiculous, in particular, is the casual dismissal of such a welter of evidence. It's truly an incredible amount of scientific work that supports the theory of evolution, and it's being thrown away in favour of an allegorical religious text (because we can prove the account of Genesis is not literal, we covered that in pages 3-4 ish I believe) interpreted literally (something I'd note goes against the heads of both the Catholic Church and Church of England, who have spoken out to condemn the attacks upon science that ID/creationism are).
-
Responding to the link about the second law of thermodynamics... so much bull**** contained within a single page.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF
-
Truthfully, i have no idea what the hell the 2nd law of thermodimanics is.
Then let's ignore it as an argument. You don't understand it and I know that anyone who uses it is full of **** so there isn't much point in mentioning it again.
Christianity is a beleif. Facts are facts. Truth is truth. But, some facts, and some truth, are later proven false. The lies are concitered 'hard factual evidence'
I'm going to stop you right there. Saying that science is lies indicates that not only are the scientists wrong but that they are involved in some gigantic conspiracy against you. Kindly avoid using such words unless not only can you prove the science wrong but also prove malice as well.
My point: Not every fact you hold now can be concitered completely fact. Some yes, but others no
Completely and utterly wrong. Not a single thing is considered a fact by science. Not one. Every single principle is open to the possibility that new evidence can be discovered tomorrow which completely refutes a long standing point completely. The fact that epigenetics has gone from being rank heresy to accepted scientific theory in only a couple of years is pretty much proof that the scientific establishment is willing to abandon long held accepted wisdom if evidence proves that it is wrong.
(Speaking to the vast majority of you out there on the opposing side of the debate). Our beleif in the certian way the world was created and managed by God, is a beleif. It is a fact to us, we know it to be true, but our 'fact' is on a different level then the facts you hold.
You may wholeheartedly believe that the moon is made out of green cheese if you wish. That doesn't make you right. It matters not one jot what you believe. What makes something correct is whether or not you can prove it. And I'm still waiting for you to prove anything.
Hours? Heck, probably a good 10+ hours. Well you do have the soruce page avalible to you. Go read reports or reviews about the book. I recall one specifically that was said by several ppl to be unbiased. Last name started with an S i beleive. I dont have time to scroll up..
I'll need more than a vague clue to some unreferenced book before I'll believe that you've even read something unbiased let alone something by someone who completely supports evolution. Even if you did I'll still point out that you didn't understand it. The fact that you claimed evolution was random proves that you haven't understood the major principle on which the theory is based.
Analogy right back at ya man:
A man stands in a liquid. It is dark. He sees it glitter, feels the liquid, and hears it. He says "This is water. Anyone who tells me different is silly and greatly mistaken. Its fact that it is. The sun comes up, and he realises it is not water, but a great lake of apple juice. It feels just like water, sounds like it, looks like it in the dark, but yet its not. He thought he could see the whole picture, the whole thing, but greatly mistaken was he. The glisten didnt prove it was water, or the combination of several observations.
This actually supports the scientific viewpoint better. Notice how the man changes his viewpoint upon getting new data. Had this been a religious man he would have continued to proclaim it was water and refused to accept an evidence that claimed any different. Also where is the new data proving religion to be correct? You haven't even been able to supply any old data let alone something new.
Furthermore it's a poor analogy for science because there were simple, testable things the man could have done to test what the liquid was (i.e drinking or smelling it) and he refused to do them prefering to take his conclusion as the absolute truth. That is not how science works.
Rediculous according to who? Where is your proof to back that statement up, or your facts that led you to that conclusion? Your side may seem equally rediculous to many christians, such as Zman.
The fact that the world isn't flat seems idiotic the first time you hear it. How come people don't fall off into space? Something may seems ridiculous but actually be correct. What makes something right or wrong is supporting evidence. The people who think the world is flat are wrong not because the fact that the world is round seems any less ridiculous (in fact until you understand gravity it seems more idiotic) but because we can test and prove that the world is round.
So again we're back to me asking you for proof that your belief that there is no such thing as evolution is correct. Whether you find the concept ridiculous or not is completely immaterial.
T- what? Im talking half about evolution and half of creationism. So thus its not spam.
How you have the nerve to accuse others of spamming when you obviously haven't even read the first post and its links is beyond me. I'd let the matter of spamming drop if I were you.
Im still here, biach.
But you've singularly failed to provide a single piece of evidence that you are correct. You've simply argued about side issues such as who is spamming and completely failed to actually take up Black Wolf's challenge. So who's the biach now?
-
Missed stuff. Really must haul arse to bed, but I enjoy this.
[q]Christianity is a beleif. Facts are facts. Truth is truth. But, some facts, and some truth, are later proven false. The lies are concitered 'hard factual evidence'[/q]
I missed that one. That's utter insanity. Go by that, and nothing exists. 2+2=4? Bollocks. That TV is showing a picture? Pure tosh. Stuff falls downwards at a constant rate? Bunkum. Cars? Work by magic.
[q]Hours? Heck, probably a good 10+ hours. Well you do have the soruce page avalible to you. Go read reports or reviews about the book. I recall one specifically that was said by several ppl to be unbiased. Last name started with an S i beleive. I dont have time to scroll up..[/q]
Are you taking the piss? You're hiding.
Moreso, without direct citations we really don't know if you've trojan horsed in some rubbish on top of a tiny single word quote from a legit book. Hell, I remember in the last one of these debates Stealth posted a 'quote' from a prominent scientist against evolution....which turned out to be a supporting quote with certain words removed.
-
Was there 'posed be more to that post? Either I was ignored or too scary...
-
Well first of all, proveing there is a god may not be possibly done by hard core facts. As we dont have gods cells or whatever hes made out of, if hes made out of anything. Faith in god opposed to substancial 2+2=4 facts. You expect me to throw some formula or fossil of a angel out on the tabel to prove it?
I dont think God can be proved unless he makes you a beleiver personally. As i said, some beleive cause of this great lifefull world, the beauty of nature, or by a personal conviction. I have my own convictions.
I am overwhelmed at the stuff im up agienst here, and you dont seem to be understanding my position.
Give me specific things to discuss, answer, compare, or talk about. A vast array has been given, and many general topics. I beleive it is hard to lock down good trustable info on the Net, for the vast majority of the issues discussed, within this small ammount of time. If you gave specific things, then i could give a more meaningfull reply. I may go to the library again tomorrow and get a book or 2 on Creationism ect just so i can have a liable sorce, that wouldent take as long to track down. Please hear what im saying.
For the mostpart, Proof of god, or Proveing of god, is (done) in the heart, in ones own mind and being. I have witnessed several things God has done, i have seen people get healed of sickness, pain, ect. I have seen prophets of modern time, profesy, and i have been proficyed too. I have proficyed myself. I am of the Charismatic Christian Denomination, sorta like Pentacostols, who focus on the actions done at Pentacost (Sp?). If you wana know what Christians beleive, or what i beleive on certian topics, or to talk about the differences between christianity or creationism and evolution or w\e, i will be glad to.
"This is a fact: yada yada. What do you have to say about it? What do christians beleive about it?" ect would be better i think.
EDIT: There are inconsitancies and such that discredit Evolution, or that tend to suggest it is flawd or wrong\inconclusive. Such as incomplete fossil records. Not finding tranisitional species or fossils or w\e (or not enough of them). Big gaps in fossil records (maby). This is just one of the flaws. How can you say man evolved from ape\monkey? And that from a tiny simple cell at the creation of the universe. How did nonlife create life? How did matter come from nonmatter? How did the universe begin? You say a beleif, sorry, FACT, that we evolved, is so certian cause it is the best way to explain things, is true? Well, what about all the inprobabilities, all of the inconsitancies, the missing info. You fail to answer these questions yourself. For all of these i can tell you what us christians beleive. Some of it you probably heard before, yes, but still. We beleive, because of our faith. How did the world begin? God created it. We have answers, and some explinations, but yes they are based on faith or the bible. It gives us a basis, and a answer to fill the void. It makes sence to us. You cirticise our beleifs with an answer, yet you fail to answer the same questions of your own.
-
The main issue is this. There may be no way to prove the existence of god.
however, there's about a million ways to prove science and the ideas and theories that come under it, including evolution.
i'm more inclined to believe the ones that can be proven than the one i have to take on faith
-
ok, how's this, how old is the earth, and why do you think that?
-
EDIT: There are inconsitancies and such that discredit Evolution, or that tend to suggest it is flawd or wrong\inconclusive. Such as incomplete fossil records. Not finding tranisitional species or fossils or w\e (or not enough of them). Big gaps in fossil records (maby). This is just one of the flaws. How can you say man evolved from ape\monkey? And that from a tiny simple cell at the creation of the universe. How did nonlife create life? How did matter come from nonmatter? How did the universe begin? You say a beleif, sorry, FACT, that we evolved, is so certian cause it is the best way to explain things, is true? Well, what about all the inprobabilities, all of the inconsitancies, the missing info. You fail to answer these questions yourself. For all of these i can tell you what us christians beleive. Some of it you probably heard before, yes, but still. We beleive, because of our faith. How did the world begin? God created it. We have answers, and some explinations, but yes they are based on faith or the bible. It gives us a basis, and a answer to fill the void. It makes sence to us. You cirticise our beleifs with an answer, yet you fail to answer the same questions of your own.
Er... Interesting... you start by specifying evolution only to later go into the realms of cosmology/biology but not before you show significant lack of knowledge about evolution. Firstly man didn't evolve from ape\monkey but instead they have common ancestors. You point out a maybe and declare it as a flaw in a scientific theory while saying a belief is better suited to explain reality? Are we supposed to take it seriously? Everything else is within the realms of other theories and even entirely diferent realms of science. We fail at answering those questions? No, you fail at asking them.
-
from what i've seen of humanity, i have absolutely no problem classifying our species as apes.
except humans seem to have a much more developed herd mentality.
-
ok, how's this, how old is the earth, and why do you think that?
Aprox. 10,000 years. The Bible depicts the world being created in 6 days. God developed it not at the absolute beginning of age, nor as a old planet, but as a sort of middleaged one, IIRC. From earliest records, is like what, 6000 BC (iirc), and its 2000ad now right? That would be 8000 years, give or take some more. There are some ppl to claim to have facts supporting this theory. It is late and i have no time to research that now. But i do recall a segment in a book of the related subject matter, claiming some proof to this. If anyone has time, they can look it up in place of me; to keep this going, and shed light on both sides.
Evolutionists beleive the universe is 100's of billions of years old. The earth several billion, IIRC. Im choosing not to go into detail; lest i offend some of the 'you are a disgrase if you do not know 100% of the facts and nacks about evolution concerning this matter' people. (Kara, i beleive. Maby it was Aldo. Not sure.) And jsut to be clear, i ahve nothing agienst any of you for what you beleive or say. As kara said, all are intitled to their own beleifs.
-
/*this was in responce to your edit, wich you made after I posted my origonal question, responce to youre responce is forthcomeing...*/
no transito.... NO TRANSITIONAL FOSILS!?!?!?!?
WHAT, may I ask, WAS THE THING THAT STARTED THIS TOPIC?
no, I'm sorry there ARE transitional fosils, and _lots_ of them, even for something as unbeleivably rare as human fosils we have transitional fosils going from something apelike to man, don't beleive me? FINE!
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg)
whoa! look at all them thar transitionals!
we have them for snails
(http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/trans01.JPG)
here's a, I don't actualy know what this is, but the image was everywer
(http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina_big.jpg)
here is a very long term analisis of the change of jaw bones from amphibians to humans
(http://pharyngula.org/images/jawevo.jpg)
horse
toes
(http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Graphics/miller_fig6.gif)
heads
(http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Graphics/miller_fig5.gif)
cynodons to early mamals
(http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Graphics/miller_fig12.gif)
fish to amphibians
(http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Graphics/miller_fig14.gif)
we have plenty of transitional fossils, if this is 'not enough' (note this was what I bothered to copy paste in a few minutes from what a google immage search gave me, there are vastly more than what I have just posted) how many would be? do you want every organism to have ever lived not only recorded in the fosil record but found as well? fosilisation is a complecated delicate process, it happens rarely, and yet we have a vast number of transitional forms showing one animal turning into another.
now what do you have as evedence that the world was made by God? you read it in a book?
-
Er... Interesting... you start by specifying evolution only to later go into the realms of cosmology/biology but not before you show significant lack of knowledge about evolution. Firstly man didn't evolve from ape\monkey but instead they have common ancestors. You point out a maybe and declare it as a flaw in a scientific theory while saying a belief is better suited to explain reality? Are we supposed to take it seriously? Everything else is within the realms of other theories and even entirely diferent realms of science. We fail at answering those questions? No, you fail at asking them.
Meh its late. What lack of knoloage?
*Breath* Evolution is the evolving of past species (to make new ones) over (millions or thousands of years) a long period of time. They evolve due to adapting and overcomeing (or dieing and becomeing extinct by) natural disasters or other such phenomenon. A flood occurs, some die, some grow gills (over a period of time), tho it may be a drastic example, nonetheless it is an example. Maby a better example is, if they lived by alot of water, such as marshes or bogs.
Common ancestroy, yeah, that is what i meant. Some Evolutionists do say man came from ape, and we have all heard that, so why am i being blaimed for repeating it?
I remember a little blurp of something.
A question like, how did animals that normaly would live inland on continetns, (like, what was it, kangaroo? marcipuls? hell i dont know) get on places like austraila. Yes Aussy is a continet, but, as some evolutionits depict the worlds curst as being whole at one point, and breaking off and drifting (which explains why aussy is so far from the rest of the land)over a long period of time.
Ok im rambeling. Its bed time for me. Il come back with a clear mind.
EDIT: Meh, at it again.
/*this was in responce to your edit, wich you made after I posted my origonal question, responce to youre responce is forthcomeing...*/
no transito.... NO TRANSITIONAL FOSILS!?!?!?!?
WHAT, may I ask, WAS THE THING THAT STARTED THIS TOPIC?
no, I'm sorry there ARE transitional fosils, and _lots_ of them, even for something as unbeleivably rare as human fosils we have transitional fosils going from something apelike to man, don't beleive me? FINE!
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg)
Did i say no? Well sorry i meant incomplete.
whoa! look at all them thar transitionals!
here's a, I don't actualy know what this is, but the image was everywer
[img]
Lol. Tis proves.. what?
we have plenty of transitional fossils, if this is 'not enough' (note this was what I bothered to copy paste in a few minutes from what a google immage search gave me, there are vastly more than what I have just posted) how many would be? do you want every organism to have ever lived not only recorded in the fosil record but found as well? fosilisation is a complecated delicate process, it happens rarely, and yet we have a vast number of transitional forms showing one animal turning into another.
now what do you have as evedence that the world was made by God? you read it in a book?
Guess i struck a funny bone.
Fossilation, the process and creating of oil.
Fossils, created by organic material under alot of pressure, as a landslide covering them, sinking in mud, (earthquake) ect e c t. Oil, created by lots of animals decay(ed)ing under the same pressure as when fossilized i beleive. You guys say its rare and barely happened. That were lucky to have as much oil and such as we have.
Anyways. The flood explains this. The water from the firmament and the waters from under the earth came crashing down, and swept away and sank all the slower and bigger animals. Then the animals went twards the higher grounds. They eventually got sucked in too. All the dirt and Plants and such, the sediment, laid on the sunken animals and such, and you have your fossils. This isnt exactly from the bible, it merely pointed us in the right direction. This is logical. many fish died, cause of the water polution and sediment, but not all, so that explains why some fish lived ect.
"The original creation of oil or petroleum is not well understood. There are several theories, but the matter is still one of scientific controversy. It is generally accepted however that the origin of oil begins with plant fossils, just as with coal. The study of fossils is called paleontology. The creation of oil is part of geology." From: http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/links/html/oil/oil_create.html
A brief blurp. Anyways, you have your fossils, all being made at once, you have your large groups of plants all ready with the pressure to create oil (of corce, when the water went down; very heavy mudd possibly sped up the process).
As for different species, god created various versions of some of the species. Several types of apes, thus, several similar types of ape skulls and skellitons. That dose Not mean its a 'tranistional fossil'. Just means its a different type. As for the man ones:
People of the world all look different, and have similar but slightly variated skull structures. That explains chinamens smallness and squinty eyes, as a normal. Yes, the skull structures changed alittle over the years, like, ones of 6000bc-2000ad. We beleive variations in species occurs, slightly, after god created them, as time passes, but not in evolutoin or a radical majior change. Skull structures may vary a little, as you have your men skulls there. That does not mean its a transistional fossil.
If man had same ancestors as apes, what species did man come from, if it was Not apes? Where are they today?
[/color]
-
ok, so you think the earth is 10,000 yeaqrs old because the bible tells you so (btw what book, chapter, and verse?). you don't have anything that if christianity was to be wiped out that you would be able to point to?
ok, well, first off, I know the earth is older than that, due to sevral factors, such as dendrochronology records that go back to 12,000 years, Ice core samples that go back more than 740,000 years, planitary cooling requiering that the earth be at least 500 million years old (this from a guy who was trying to prove the earth was about 6,000 years old BTW, and he didn't take into account nuclear energy wich if you add in raises the age to about four billion), contenental drift, and the most convinceing of all, radiometric dateing, wich shows the oldest rocks on earth are about 4-6 billion years old.
-
I do not know enough about the dateing so il have to get back to you on that. All i can say now is 'falty dateing methods'. But i really dont know.
Can you please list the several methods they used \ are using to determine the dates, so i can look them up sometime and check them out?
EDIT: Im really going to bed this time. Cya tomorrow for further debate. And i do beleive it is picking up in a good direction (Im starting to look **** up).
-
umm... I thought I did, at least a bunch of things wich show the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years, dendrochronology (counting tree rings), ice cores(counting ice layers), contenental drift (the contenents move at a relitively constant rate, if you take two that were once the same contenent and measure the distance and divide that distance by the rate of movement of the contenents you get ages in the hundreds of millions of years), lord Kalvin a stonch creationist tried to prove the earth was about 6,000 years old by takeing it's current temperature and useing a thermal energy formula showed that it was in fact at least 500 million years old, assumeing no unknown sources of heat (more heat would have made that age even older) this was before the discovery of radiation, after that was figured in the numbers corelated with the 4-6 billion year timeline.
what you are probly most interested in is the radiometric stuff wich I might as well just direct you to the wikipedia article on here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometrically_dated). there are a number of diferent radiometric techniques all of wich corelate each other, not because we fixed it that way, but out of the math of the nuclear decay, if you ave a sample wich contains potasium40 (wich has a half life of about 1.26 million years) and for every potasium40 there is an argon40 (wich being a gas would have escaped the rock during it's molten formation, thus the only way it could have gotten there was by nuclear decay from the potasium) then you know that half of the potasium has decayed, and thus the rock was solidified from a molten mass about 1.26 million years ago (if the ratio is 1:4 then you know it's about two and a half, ect...), there are many diferent isotope types and they are all cross referenced, and they all line up properly to say that the oldest rocks we've found on earth is about 4-6 billion years old. now unless God deliberately made hese rocks like this to TRICK us into thinking they were this old (and I don't see a benevolent deity doing something like this) then there is no other explaination for it.
and before you start talking to me about 50,000 year old snails measured with c14 dateing I want you to be aware of the reservoir effect (http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html) in wich erroniusly high concentrations of the decayed form of an isotope scew the age, this is a well known and easily corrected phenomonon. and it's mostly only a concern with c14 testing, wich is only a valid dateing tecnique for ages between 8000 and 50,000 years.
just be willing to consiter that the millions of people who rely upon these scientific pricipals to make the technology you are useing at this very moment might know what they are talking about and have covered there asses. the science that says the earth is 4 billion years old is an extreemly simple application of the same science that allows for nuclear power plants (and bombs) to work, if we were so wrong about the fundementals about how this stuff worked we wouldn't have nuclear power plants or computers (ect...) just consiter the posibility that the whole of the scientific comunity are not dumbasses, we have done our homework. 600 years ago, people thought the earth was flat, and the center of the universe due to things they read in the Bible, it has been showen to mislead people on the scientific facts of our reality, just think, maybe this is another example of that, should you realy base your entier understanding of the mechanics of the physical world based on a book wich has been proven to mislead people on that particular subject?
-
It is generally accepted however that the origin of oil begins with plant fossils
you rely on the word 'controversy' to make it seem like there's a whole bunch of different theories, and then throw in your crazy idea, which has no real basis in fact.
you make it seem like all the organic matter for oil was trapped at once. maybe for one oil well, but not for all of them, but it was very unlikely due to a flood. for example, volcanic and tectonic activity is a much more likely story. a flood involves water, and water is almost always filled with microscopic life. biological matter is often only preserved when it avoids these microbes, either by being completely trapped in an airtight situation, for example, a clay-rich mudslide, or by large amounts of volcanic ash.
what is much more likely than a flood is this scenario. in previous eras, there is fossil evidence that plants and animals (dinosaurs) were much larger than they are now. this is because earth had a much more lush climate way back then. there were huge lush jungles, enough food to actually sustain the huge animals that we find the fossilized remains of. if there were a volcanic eruption near one of these jungles, a pytoclastic flow could create the conditions where you would have a large area of organic matter, where all of the microbes will have been killed off or trapped, and where it would be covered and buried (by subsequent eruptions) and subjected to the proper temperatures and pressures, which would turn a lush jungle into the wondeful black ooze that we use for gas (after we process it of course).
the process of creating this organic sludge, i might add, takes longer to form than you belive this world has been around.
-
Did i say no? Well sorry i meant incomplete.
Ok, so we need to be clear on something. What do you define as "complete", and what is your basis for expecting that there should exist such a record as a condition of evolution's plausibility or your basis that we would have found all of it? To say it is "incomplete" is apparently irrefutable to you since no matter how many transitionals we do find it's still not going to satisfy your (totally incorrect) requirements.
Oh, and way to ignore the dozen other pictures CLEARLY showing transitionals that you were oh so generously linked to, and yet point out the (somewhat random, I'll admit) one that Bob explicitly said he didn't know what it was but that it was a really common picture that he encountered while looking for pictures of transitional fossils. Clearly it has some meaning, or it wouldn't be all over (I presume - we don't have where it was found but I know Bobboau's reliability in quoting reliable sources) major scientific and educational web pages. Bob may not know what that meaning is, and you clearly do not, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless.
I do not know enough about the dateing so il have to get back to you on that. All i can say now is 'falty dateing methods'. But i really dont know.
This is EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT. Data that does not explicitly corroborate your story is "erronious" or "faulty" to you, when that judgement has absolutely no basis in your knowledge or, more importantly, in reality. If you don't know, you don't know, and knowing something about the subject is an absolute prerequisite to even proposing that the measurements were faulty.
I too am very tired and won't post the two-page counterpoint that your posts in the last 8 hours really deserve. I'll keep an eye on this throughout the weekend though, and will get some comments in from time to time.
-
Guess i struck a funny bone.
Fossilation, the process and creating of oil.
no, fossilisation, and the process that makes coal/oil are two completely unrelated processes, this invalidates a vast amount of the rest of what you said
Anyways. The flood explains this.
no it doesen't
The water from the firmament and the waters from under the earth came crashing down, and swept away and sank all the slower and bigger animals. Then the animals went twards the higher grounds. They eventually got sucked in too. All the dirt and Plants and such, the sediment, laid on the sunken animals and such, and you have your fossils. This isnt exactly from the bible, it merely pointed us in the right direction.
then why are they arainged with animals in the highest sediments looking remarcably like the came from animals found in lowwer sediments, how is it that they are organised in such a way as to make it look like decendents are in the shallower rock layers?, and fossils are not mearly bones in the dirt, they are rocks, they have minerals intertwined in them, simply burying them for a few thousand years is not going to do that
As for different species, god created various versions of some of the species. then why are there no cat-dogs? why do the only 'versions' seem to be inbetween two other 'versions', why do they seem to form a tree of common ansestory? why are no human fossils found in the same rock as trilobites? Several types of apes, thus, several similar types of ape skulls and skellitons. That dose Not mean its a 'tranistional fossil'.well what would be a transitional fossil, give me an example of what you would consiter one Just means its a different type. As for the man ones:
People of the world all look different, and have similar but slightly variated skull structures. That explains chinamens smallness and squinty eyes, as a normal. Yes, the skull structures changed alittle over the years, like, ones of 6000bc-2000ad. We beleive variations in species occurs, slightly, after god created them, as time passes, but not in evolutoin or a radical majior change. Skull structures may vary a little, as you have your men skulls there. That does not mean its a transistional fossil.
look at it it has a clear line from somethinge very much like an upright chimp (the brain volume is about 1/4th modern human) to a modern human, God didn't seen it was nesisary to make primates that were halfway between orangotang and human or dog and human, he only made them in the narrow spectrome between chimp(like common ansestor) and man, and have them in rocks in order between the chimp(like thing) and modern times, this is something that could only serve to trick us, why would God make the evedence like that?
-
and that one pic showed the transition between Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa, there both some sort of micro-organism of the foram group of single-celled sexually-reproducing carnivorous plankton.
does that help? didn't think so.
-
*Breath* Evolution is the evolving of past species (to make new ones) over (millions or thousands of years) a long period of time. They evolve due to adapting and overcomeing (or dieing and becomeing extinct by) natural disasters or other such phenomenon. A flood occurs, some die, some grow gills (over a period of time), tho it may be a drastic example, nonetheless it is an example. Maby a better example is, if they lived by alot of water, such as marshes or bogs.
In a broad sense that is correct. In a specific sense that is incorrect. The animals would not simply 'gow gills' as a result of the flood. Those animals better-suited to water living would be able to support themselves better than animals less well-suited to water living. So they would be able to get food, shelter, etc before the other members of that species who were not as well suited to water living. After awhile, those less well-suited to water living would die out. As time went on, and a new generation of the species came about, the members of the new generation better suited for water living would undergo the same selection process; animals whose physical characteristics were more like the land-lubbers would die faster.
For the sake of the example, let's say that the main advantage being stressed is the amount of skin in between the creature's fingers/toes. More skin would form a natural paddle.
Over time, the animal would probably lose its distinc toes, and instead develop paddles similar to those found on a duck. Not because of any kind of growth of the animal, but because the babies with more skin in between their toes would end up leading better lives than those with less.
Common ancestroy, yeah, that is what i meant. Some Evolutionists do say man came from ape, and we have all heard that, so why am i being blaimed for repeating it?
Because according to current science they were wrong, possibly due to new data or simply because they were not as well-informed and did not bother to try and extend their knowledge on the subject.
Before you jump in and try and claim that it is proof of science jumping to conclusions, it's not. It is a basic understanding of the field that new information may either support or disprove old information...however it is simply inefficient to prefix every statement with a bibliography as well as a probability estimate of how certain the information is. If you believe thatsomething someone else is wrong, then you are expected to present evidence that can be proven by repeated experiment to disprove their information.
If man had same ancestors as apes, what species did man come from, if it was Not apes? Where are they today?[/color]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
According to the text of the entry, they are not the common ancestor, as evidence supports either this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis) or this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyanthropus_platyops) being the common ancestor. However it does have a discussion on the subject.
-
I have always found it ironic that these people pretty much have the universe coming into existence at the time that writing began :p Of course the date for writing has been pushed back a bit with earlier and earlier Mesopotamian stuff being translated. So we can go back somewhere around 10,000 years with some written record.
Of course dendrochronology goes back pretty far too. Quite a bit further back than what even Bobboau mentioned.
So, one question for Charismatic and other true believers:
Where is the land of Nod? If there was intermarriage with these... people but they weren't created by god in the same sense as Adam and Eve that doesn't exactly make us pure descendants of the creation chronology you mention does it?
-
Well first of all, proveing there is a god may not be possibly done by hard core facts.
I didn't ask you to prove God exists. You claimed that you formed the opinion that evolution was wrong based on a dispationate evaluation of the arguments of both sides. You claimed that you have found proof that evolution is wrong. I'm asking you to produce it. You have failed to do this on every single occassion. The closest you have come is to quote name of several theories which have all been discredited both in the wider scientific world but also on this very thread.
If the best proof you have that evolution is wrong is that someone told you the name of several theories that disprove it you have nothing.
So yet again I'm asking you to provide this proof that evolution is wrong.
Give me specific things to discuss, answer, compare, or talk about. A vast array has been given, and many general topics. I beleive it is hard to lock down good trustable info on the Net, for the vast majority of the issues discussed, within this small ammount of time. If you gave specific things, then i could give a more meaningfull reply. I may go to the library again tomorrow and get a book or 2 on Creationism ect just so i can have a liable sorce, that wouldent take as long to track down. Please hear what im saying.
Actually you are the one not listening. You claim to have unbiased scientific evidence that evolution is wrong. Produce it.
There are inconsitancies and such that discredit Evolution, or that tend to suggest it is flawd or wrong\inconclusive. Such as incomplete fossil records. Not finding tranisitional species or fossils or w\e (or not enough of them). Big gaps in fossil records (maby). This is just one of the flaws.
Lack of a complete fossil record is not a flaw in evolution. The fossil record is incomplete because fossilisation is a rare process. You seem to be expecting that the fossil record should be a complete table of every animal that ever lived. It simply doesn't work that way.
But that doesn't matter anyway because where the fossil record is complete for a page or two and you can read the story you deny it completely anyway. You claim that there are no transitional fossils dispite the fact that this very thread is reporting the discovery of one.
And that from a tiny simple cell at the creation of the universe.
Fundemental mistake. This is the second time you have said this and it only goes to prove that you do not understand the matters you claim you do. Let me put this clearly. No one claims that the big bang created single celled organisms. Not you. Not me. No one.
How did nonlife create life?
Irrelevent. Abiogenesis is a fascinating topic but it is 100% irrelevent to the argument. You seem to want to sum up evolution into a single giant theory that scientist claim explains everything but that is not what evolution actually is. Evolution covers everything from the first cells onwards. Abiogenesis covers the appearance of the first cells. Once again this is proof that you don't understand what evolution is.
Let's say for the sake of argument that it was proved scientifically and beyond any doubt that God created the first cell. Would that disprove evolution? Nope. Not one iota. Evolution covers what happened afterwards. This is actually the Roman Catholic position on the matter. They believe that God created the first cell and then that evolution occured. Now if a Catholic were to argue with me then I'd argue about abiogenesis but you have claimed that
a) You understand evolution
b) You have proof it is wrong
Abiogenesis relates to neither of those two points and is therefore completely irrelevent to this discussion.
How did matter come from nonmatter? How did the universe begin?
Again irrelevent for similar reasons to the above.
Well, what about all the inprobabilities, all of the inconsitancies, the missing info. You fail to answer these questions yourself.
What improbabilities and inconsistancies? I've asked you time and time again to actually state what these are and the best you could do was to give the name of a few crackpot theories. When you named one which I had actually heard of I proved why Mitochondrial Eve was not what you thought it was. I have only failed to answer these questions because you have failed to ask them in the first place. Those qusetions you have asked I have answered. Much more fully than you have answered my original question which was for you to post proof that evolution is wrong.
Instead you've gone on a massive, irrelevent preamble. You've stated several times that the evidence is coming and then simply posted more conjecture, assertions and complete misunderstandings of the topic at hand.
You say you have proof that evolution is wrong. Post it. Not stuff about abiogenesis. Not stuff about the big bang. Not stuff about geology or any other subject irrelevent to my question. Post the damn proof you've been claiming you have for the last 8 or so pages.
For all of these i can tell you what us christians beleive.
Nope. You are telling us what you believe. There are large number of christians who believe in evolution completely. There are large numbers who don't believe but believe that the Earth is older than a few thousand years old. Lastly there are large numbers who believe that the bible is the literal truth.
Do not attempt to speak for the first two groups cause they all believe you are wrong.
Some of it you probably heard before, yes, but still. We beleive, because of our faith. How did the world begin? God created it. We have answers, and some explinations, but yes they are based on faith or the bible.
So when all is said and done you have no scientific proof at all. All you have is faith that a book is correct. You told me you had arrived at the opinion that evolution was wrong based on the scientific evidence and yet you have none.
Very disappointing.
-
[q]
EDIT: There are inconsitancies and such that discredit Evolution, or that tend to suggest it is flawd or wrong\inconclusive. Such as incomplete fossil records. Not finding tranisitional species or fossils or w\e (or not enough of them). Big gaps in fossil records (maby). This is just one of the flaws. How can you say man evolved from ape\monkey? And that from a tiny simple cell at the creation of the universe. How did nonlife create life? How did matter come from nonmatter? How did the universe begin? You say a beleif, sorry, FACT, that we evolved, is so certian cause it is the best way to explain things, is true? Well, what about all the inprobabilities, all of the inconsitancies, the missing info. You fail to answer these questions yourself. For all of these i can tell you what us christians beleive. Some of it you probably heard before, yes, but still. We beleive, because of our faith. How did the world begin? God created it. We have answers, and some explinations, but yes they are based on faith or the bible. It gives us a basis, and a answer to fill the void. It makes sence to us. You cirticise our beleifs with an answer, yet you fail to answer the same questions of your own.[/q]
Ok, this is another inherent misunderstanding. Firstly, the incomplete fossil record does not discredit evolution; it is both expected and predicted by geology and is a known restriction that evolutionary research takes into account. In actualiy, a complete fossil record would be evidence for some sort of miraculous cause, given the incredibly high odds on having one. Moreso, what evidence we have - and it is a lot, both from fossil record and lab experiments on macroevolution - is all supportive. This a tired and nonsensical arguement to make, because it applies to every scientific theory ever made if you invoke the principle of an infinitely complex universe; i.e. the untestability of string theory or the lack (as of yet) of discovery of the Higgs Boson could be used to declare physics wrong.
Now, firstly, I'd note for the 3rd or 4th time that abiogensesis - the development of first life - isn't actually covered by evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is an incredibly difficult subject, and it'll take us a long time to tie down the mechanics, although we have already done some work (such as showing that amino acids, with an electrical input such as lightning, can self-assemble in an atmosphere akin to that predicted for early earth). And sofoth. But I'm not going to argue about abiogenesis because it's irrelevant.
Also, the origins of the universe are again not related to evolution but are a matter of physics. So you've failed to understand evolution in a basic enough way to understand the scope of it, let alone the content.
So let me explain it. Evolution is not about the origin of the universe or life, but how life developed once it begin. It may be, of course, that something akin to evolutionary principles helped in the development of things like amino acids, but that is really outside the scope of evolutionary theory itself. So your key arguements here are actually arguements to be used against abiogenesis.
Except for 'man evolved from ape'. So, how can we say that? 2 things immediately spring to mind
-Physical similarities documented across the known fossil record (you can see a link to a bbc article a few pages or so back to the discovery of a transitional form in an area with other transitional forms that further supports the evolutionary path)
-Genetic similarities (actually, we can extend this and also note the commonalities in both DNA and the use of same amino acids, etc, are evidence of descent from a single common ancestor organism, i.e. that single cell).
It's worth noting human evolution itself is still something under scrutiny and being strongly debated. I have no doubt you or someone else would try and take that as some problem with the theory; the truth is that it's the strength; the creationist arguement would and is to say x is true, back it up with some poorly researched bollocks, and discourage any conversation or work about the validity of x.
Is it the best way to explain certain things? YES. That's the whole bloody point! It has more supporting evidence than any other theory ever made, that's why it's the dominant and accepted one. Define what questions evolution fails to answer, because all the ones you've proposed here have been fuelled by your own inherent misunderstanding of the theory. Moreso, unlike faith based explanations, not only evolution (science) dictated by evidence before a theory is formed, that theory is always open to contradiction and thus revisal should reliable scientific evidence exist. Whereas you've consistently shown here an unwillingness to even acknowledge, let alone address, the disproof offered to everyone of your own quasi-scientific justifications and rolled back here onto accusing people - which would include the last 2 Popes and the Archbishop of Canterbury - of religious bias against you.
[q]Aprox. 10,000 years. The Bible depicts the world being created in 6 days. God developed it not at the absolute beginning of age, nor as a old planet, but as a sort of middleaged one, IIRC. From earliest records, is like what, 6000 BC (iirc), and its 2000ad now right? That would be 8000 years, give or take some more. There are some ppl to claim to have facts supporting this theory. It is late and i have no time to research that now. But i do recall a segment in a book of the related subject matter, claiming some proof to this. If anyone has time, they can look it up in place of me; to keep this going, and shed light on both sides.
Evolutionists beleive the universe is 100's of billions of years old. The earth several billion, IIRC. Im choosing not to go into detail; lest i offend some of the 'you are a disgrase if you do not know 100% of the facts and nacks about evolution concerning this matter' people. (Kara, i beleive. Maby it was Aldo. Not sure.) And jsut to be clear, i ahve nothing agienst any of you for what you beleive or say. As kara said, all are intitled to their own beleifs.[/q]
Actually, scientologists believe the universe is hundreds of billions of years old.
The age of the universe according to science is 13.7bn years, give or take a few hundred; this was determined by the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe (a satellite) in 2003, using the Hubble constant (the constant rate of movement of galaxies in the expanding universe IIRC) to measure the distance of the galaxies around us. The earths' age is 4,550m years old, defined by Clair Patterson by measuring the age of meteorites (plate tectonics make it hard to find ancient earth rocks, so instead Patterson used - uncontaminated only - these as they are leftovers from the accretion of the planets and have a fairly pristine condition) using a mass spectrograph.
I note that you have to twist the bible into your own personal interpretation rather than the literal words to even begin to account for this. Unfortunately, carbo dating does reliably go back about 60,000 years (based on constants of decay and accounting for the documented dating skew by using tree rings, as I mentioned earlier), so we can disprove the age of the earth being 8,000 years rather comprehensively by both that angle and also sediment layers (i.e. we have older human remains than 8,000 years - 195,000 being the oldest modern human remains found - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo_2.html)
If you don't know the facts - and you clearly don't - then you have to ask yourself why you're participating in a debate when you don't have the understanding of the basic subject that debate is about. IN this page I've seen the use of the wrong age of the universe, wrong definition of the scope of evolutionary theory, not understanding the mechanics of understanding human descent, and admitting you don't know the 2nd law of thermodynamics arguement (fair enough, it's a stupid arguement) before citing a (biased) page that makes the thoroughly discredited arguement of irreducible complexity.
It's not a belief, though; it's an established, documented, and well proven scientific theory. That's like saying that knowing things fall down due to the force of gravity is a 'belief'. That's the whole point, really; creationism is belief. Evolution is science. One is neutral and revised to fit the known facts, one exists solely to bulk upon support for a social code of morality. One is supported by both the Vatican and Church of England, alongside every biologist in the world, as the right answer to fit everything we know. Guess which?
Oh yeah, and as Bob said there are a lot of transitional fossils. Lots. Equines are well documented in the fossil record (that's horses). Archeoptyrx is a famous example. The very first page has an example of a transitional fish-land animal fossil (others include Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega). We have human transitional fossils (to be precise, homo genus fossils). Fossils depicting the evolution of sea-living mammals like whales (Sinonyx, Rodhocetus, etc). And actually quite a lot more on top of that.
[q]
*Breath* Evolution is the evolving of past species (to make new ones) over (millions or thousands of years) a long period of time. They evolve due to adapting and overcomeing (or dieing and becomeing extinct by) natural disasters or other such phenomenon. A flood occurs, some die, some grow gills (over a period of time), tho it may be a drastic example, nonetheless it is an example. Maby a better example is, if they lived by alot of water, such as marshes or bogs.[/q]
Complete tosh, and you've already been corrected for it way back. Evolution is not, I repeat not caused by natural disaster, and it doesn't require millions of years. That's quite simply mindnumbingly stupid; evolution is not a reactive action in the way you depict it. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Evolution - the selection of features caused by random mutation - is dependent on that mutated feature being advantageous either in the sense of aiding survival or reproductive chances. This is the most basic part of evolutionary theory, and you've got it wrong despite me correcting you earlier.
Example;
We have a gazelle. This gazelle, thanks to some mutation, has 5% better peripheral vision. Does that mutation aid the gazelles ability to survive? Yes. Does it require 'natural disasters or other such phenomenon'? Absolutely not.
I feel like banging my head against the wall here.
[q]Common ancestroy, yeah, that is what i meant. Some Evolutionists do say man came from ape, and we have all heard that, so why am i being blaimed for repeating it?[/q]
You're being blamed for your failure to understand the supporting evidence.
[q]Guess i struck a funny bone.
Fossilation, the process and creating of oil.
Fossils, created by organic material under alot of pressure, as a landslide covering them, sinking in mud, (earthquake) ect e c t. Oil, created by lots of animals decay(ed)ing under the same pressure as when fossilized i beleive. You guys say its rare and barely happened. That were lucky to have as much oil and such as we have.
[/q]
You're getting it wrong again.
Firstly, only organisms not eaten are fossilized; out of that pool - about 0.1% - you have a small chance of being fossilized. You need to die in the right place - only about 15% of rocks can preserve fossils. In practical terms, you need to be in an area buried in sediment to leave an impression, and where there is no oxygen (this allows the molecules in bones and hard parts to be replaced by harder molecules, creating a mineral replacement of the original part/s). Then you need to be lucky enough for that fossil to remain intact over millions of years of geological changes shifting, pressing and folding the sediment that fossil remains in. And then you need to find it. It has been estimated that less than one species in 10,000 has made it into the fossil record - and that's a conservative estimate, and we'd still need to find these species.
Oil - or more correctly, petroleum - is believed to be caused by the decayed remains (not fossils, which are mineralized remains) of plant and ancient (simple) marine life, whereby the remains are trapped under sedimentary layws of material. Heat and pressure cause the remains to metamorphose, eventually into 'oil', whereby it migrates through the rock layers until trapped in porous rocks (reservoirs).
So there is no relation whatsoever between oil and fossilisation.
[q]
Anyways. The flood explains this. The water from the firmament and the waters from under the earth came crashing down, and swept away and sank all the slower and bigger animals. Then the animals went twards the higher grounds. They eventually got sucked in too. All the dirt and Plants and such, the sediment, laid on the sunken animals and such, and you have your fossils. This isnt exactly from the bible, it merely pointed us in the right direction. This is logical. many fish died, cause of the water polution and sediment, but not all, so that explains why some fish lived ect.
"The original creation of oil or petroleum is not well understood. There are several theories, but the matter is still one of scientific controversy. It is generally accepted however that the origin of oil begins with plant fossils, just as with coal. The study of fossils is called paleontology. The creation of oil is part of geology." From: http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/links/html/oil/oil_create.html
A brief blurp. Anyways, you have your fossils, all being made at once, you have your large groups of plants all ready with the pressure to create oil (of corce, when the water went down; very heavy mudd possibly sped up the process).[/q]
Again, this is inconsistent by scientific knowledge (why the hell are you quoting a creationist webpage? We all know there's an agenda here, an inherent bias, and that source is also completely wrong). For example, if the flood happened - and I've already said this - it would have killed of not just some fish, but all fish not suited to that particular slightly-salty water content (I think the term is brackish, not sure). That is, fish who lived in freshwater would die because of the salt content, fish who lived in the sea would die because of the freshwater infusion diluting the salt content, and the only survivors would be those who could live in the resulting global mix. So the flood in effect predicts we have no sea-life afterwards.
NB: you mean 'pointed us in the right way' as in the sense you need to liberally reinterpret the bible to account for accepted scientific knowledge?
[q]As for different species, god created various versions of some of the species. Several types of apes, thus, several similar types of ape skulls and skellitons. That dose Not mean its a 'tranistional fossil'. Just means its a different type. As for the man ones:
People of the world all look different, and have similar but slightly variated skull structures. That explains chinamens smallness and squinty eyes, as a normal. Yes, the skull structures changed alittle over the years, like, ones of 6000bc-2000ad. We beleive variations in species occurs, slightly, after god created them, as time passes, but not in evolutoin or a radical majior change. Skull structures may vary a little, as you have your men skulls there. That does not mean its a transistional fossil.[/q]
I see you still don't understand a transitional fossil, then. It's a fossil showing a distinct linking morphological change that fits between a predecessor and descendent fossil (dated as per the fossil record). Evolution explains all these morphological changes far better than God does - why would God want to create a non-uniform species? The only reason is if it gave those individual groupings an advantage. So in other words, God acts in the same way as natural selection. And these changes are accounted for by mutation. so really, your own example proves we don't need God here, unless God is making random changes for the hell of it, in which case it's most definately logically inconsistent with the far more rational act of selection.
[q]If man had same ancestors as apes, what species did man come from, if it was Not apes? Where are they today?[/q]
Oh my.... ahem. The ancestors...evolved. Evolution confers...an advantage. That's what we call selection. Therefore, the ancestors are outcompeted and die out. Guess what - modern apes also evolved from ancestors. Like everything else on the planet.
-
It's also worth pointing out that a literal reading of the bible puts the age of the Earth at 6,000 years old not 10,000 so where Charismatic has gotten that other 4,000 years from is anybody's guess.
-
Common ancestroy, yeah, that is what i meant. Some Evolutionists do say man came from ape, and we have all heard that, so why am i being blaimed for repeating it?
Because according to current science they were wrong, possibly due to new data or simply because they were not as well-informed and did not bother to try and extend their knowledge on the subject.
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what he means by 'ape', anyways. Char doesn't strike me as, how shall we say, a taxonomic expert, so whether he means modern primates by 'ape' is your guess as good as mine.
-
Well first of all, proveing there is a god may not be possibly done by hard core facts.
If the best proof you have that evolution is wrong is that someone told you the name of several theories that disprove it you have nothing.
So yet again I'm asking you to provide this proof that evolution is wrong.
Well, fine. I will track down the books i got from the library last time and look it up and quote it all for you. It will take a week or so cause, i leave this next wednesday till sunday, so i wont be able to do it. Give it time. I am putting this on my to-do list.
It's also worth pointing out that a literal reading of the bible puts the age of the Earth at 6,000 years old not 10,000 so where Charismatic has gotten that other 4,000 years from is anybody's guess.
The future? (j\k) I said roughly. And concitering you think the earth is billions of years old, I'd say im in the ballpark, wouldent you?
Common ancestroy, yeah, that is what i meant. Some Evolutionists do say man came from ape, and we have all heard that, so why am i being blaimed for repeating it?
Because according to current science they were wrong, possibly due to new data or simply because they were not as well-informed and did not bother to try and extend their knowledge on the subject.
Can you, perhaps, give some backing that they are wrong. Because, you guys have been nailing me for not haveing backing ATM, and you are doing the same. How do you know they are wrong, yet, dont know why they are? If you didnt know, wouldent you, just as well, beleive it was still right?
Before you jump in and try and claim that it is proof of science jumping to conclusions, it's not. Wasent going to
-
Think of the ape thing in the same way that people call chimpanzees monkeys. Chimps are not monkeys but lots of people get it wrong. Hell even people who do know the difference occassionally get it wrong and then correct themselves.
Similarly the ancestors of mankind are not apes but lots of people mistakenly claim that. Even people who do know better.
-
Similarly the ancestors of mankind are not apes but lots of people mistakenly claim that. Even people who do know better.
Actually they were, and we are still apes now.
-
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. ]
What? ID opposes and denies Christianity?!
I dare you to prove that one!! :lol:
-
Man, Im watching this Why Creationism is Wrong podcast by Professor Steve Jones for The Royal Sopciety, and I think its really really dreadfull.
So unless someones already posted it already, heres Dr Ken Miller on the Dover ID trial.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/01/ken_miller_webc.html
-
Similarly the ancestors of mankind are not apes but lots of people mistakenly claim that. Even people who do know better.
Actually they were, and we are still apes now.
Well, we're not discussing taxonomical issues here; as far as I can tell, when Charis refers to apes he means the modern day Gorilla/Pan subfamilies. Even when respecting the divergence (I think it's put at 25my ago?) of the great ape family, there's kind of an issue in relating 'ape' in a modern day context to 'ape' in the historical taxonomical context. Unfortunately when you deal with creationist arguements you tend to be working at a very low level in scientific terms, one that usually fails to understand the basics of evolutionary theory and divergences; there's a big risk (and tendency) that a creationist will interpret evolved from apes as implying we're all just one step from a modern gorilla or something.
-
Yep. Aldo's basically made the point I wanted to make. I should know better than try to post quickly in the advertising break of a show I'm watching :D
-
Well, we're not discussing taxonomical issues here; as far as I can tell, when Charis refers to apes he means the modern day Gorilla/Pan subfamilies. Even when respecting the divergence (I think it's put at 25my ago?) of the great ape family, there's kind of an issue in relating 'ape' in a modern day context to 'ape' in the historical taxonomical context. Unfortunately when you deal with creationist arguements you tend to be working at a very low level in scientific terms, one that usually fails to understand the basics of evolutionary theory and divergences; there's a big risk (and tendency) that a creationist will interpret evolved from apes as implying we're all just one step from a modern gorilla or something.
Yes, but that is why I think its important to use the terms in the right way and correct any incorrect or inappropriate usage. Creationists will regulally use scientific terms in the wrong way, for example words like "species" and "information".
Ed
-
Well, we're not discussing taxonomical issues here; as far as I can tell, when Charis refers to apes he means the modern day Gorilla/Pan subfamilies. Even when respecting the divergence (I think it's put at 25my ago?) of the great ape family, there's kind of an issue in relating 'ape' in a modern day context to 'ape' in the historical taxonomical context. Unfortunately when you deal with creationist arguements you tend to be working at a very low level in scientific terms, one that usually fails to understand the basics of evolutionary theory and divergences; there's a big risk (and tendency) that a creationist will interpret evolved from apes as implying we're all just one step from a modern gorilla or something.
Yes, but that is why I think its important to use the terms in the right way and correct any incorrect or inappropriate usage. Creationists will regulally use scientific terms in the wrong way, for example words like "species" and "information".
Ed
Oh, no doubt, and it's a major pain in the arse trying to reconcile the problems caused by this sort of fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, particularly when the scientific evidence is being so casually ignored. i mean, for example, I don't think I've seen a single reply to any of the scientific responses or even the simple ones I've posted, to the extent that the same base mistakes (namely on the big bang as part of evolution and the incorrect definition of selection theory) were made in Charis' post 5 pages down the line.
-
Well what do you expect me to scientificly bable on to?
The psudo magnetic force, as related to polygons, indicate that there is some subatomic mass in the nuclear level. Therefore, that implys that there is a force of nature beyond the eyespectrum. That can be proven by the ganacosis level of nuclear blasts, spursing out when force is applied to them. So, with these hard core facts, the solid theory deriven from them, is that, the force beyond nature really is God. He wrote his name on every cell, we just dont have microscopes to see that small.
There topic proven. ???
If there is such talk, im not the one to ask. Im not a scientific man. I know general facts about Evolution, ID, and Natural Selection, Genetic Mutation, Surivial of the Fittest etc., tho some, (as have been pointed out) are incorrectly stated.
Prove a beleif that is proved in various ways (GOD\Creationism\Christianity). Your beleifs are proved in single lined ways(Evolution,ID,etc.); thus more 'hard core facts', and 'scientific terms'.
As i said, I will get some books sometime and quote and respond form them, soon (week or so). Il try to get whatever else info i can from the (dammed) net, untill then.
EDIT: God is not a science. God is a being. FAIK, he cant be proved totally by scientific means.
We see that there is a God, and his dealings with us, in the Bible. The old testament is full of how God saved the isralites. The new testament, is how Gods son came and did many miracles, saved the world, etc.
That for one. Today, there are people who, get prayed for, and their illness goes away. They are on their death bed, of cancer, and they are prayed over, and their cancer is totally gone the next day. The SCIENTISTS dont know what hapened, or how or why the cancer went away, dissapeared. I hear of people being raised from the dead, comeing back to life, and walking and talking just like before. I myself have seen people in church services get healed. Iv seen demons being casted out. Demons are on the spiritual level. You cant always see or hear them by our physical eyes and ears. People cant exactly prove they exist, yet many have seen them. Same with god. Many have had visions, like in the bible, nowadays. You cant prove they had it, but they did. People have seen angels. People in the bible have seen angels. How can you prove with science, what people saw?
Its a proof on a whole different level, thats what iv been saying. Some of it can coincide and be proven on the scientific level, but ATM i dont know where to start. Few if any.
Explain healing. People go to a 'faith healer' with a tumor or some disease, and they get healed. Faith, beleif. Jesus said 'your faith has made you whole' in one instance. Explain faith. Explain faith healing. Faith in God.
I know ALOT about the spiritual aspect of christianity. A bit less, as you know, about the scientific proofs of it. Yet i know God is real and he exists.
Prove subspace or hperspace exists. You dont know, you cant see it. Its a whole nother freaking realm. Same with heaven\hell. it is a whole nother world, yet we cant see or hear it. We know they exist. Some people have seen heavon (a friend of mine had a vision of hell once) when they almost died. Explain that. Explain the whole 'i saw light' thing many have said. Explain visions, scientificaly. Proficy. Explain how prophets just 'know things'. How Jesus knew, the samarian woman at the well, had 5 husbands. He only just met her a minute ago, and knew that. Prophets have spoken to me, and just knew things. Explain that.
-
Prove a beleif that is proved in various ways (GOD\Creationism\Christianity). Your beleifs are proved in single lined ways(Evolution,ID,etc.); thus more 'hard core facts', and 'scientific terms'.
As i said, I will get some books sometime and quote and respond form them, soon (week or so). Il try to get whatever else info i can from the (dammed) net, untill then.
We are doing just such a thing. The real problem is that you aren't doing this yourself. Your primary, only source is the Biblical creation story, with a few misquoted statements to back it up. God/Creationism/Christianity are all essentially the same source. Evolutionists have a broad field to work from in order to prove their points. Geology, biology and astronomy are just a few of the sources that they are able to employ to prove their points. Creationists tend to argue almost simply that "What God said is right, and that's all you need to know," and quote the book of Genesis to back their arguments. Scientically, that is a very poor way to form an argument.
Start quoting more sources than the Bible (which I see you had in your long-winded post earlier; that is good) more often, and this will give you a little bit more leverage.
-
Prove a beleif that is proved in various ways (GOD\Creationism\Christianity). Your beleifs are proved in single lined ways(Evolution,ID,etc.); thus more 'hard core facts', and 'scientific terms'.
As i said, I will get some books sometime and quote and respond form them, soon (week or so). Il try to get whatever else info i can from the (dammed) net, untill then.
We are doing just such a thing. The real problem is that you aren't doing this yourself. Your primary, only source is the Biblical creation story, with a few misquoted statements to back it up. God/Creationism/Christianity are all essentially the same source. Evolutionists have a broad field to work from in order to prove their points. Geology, biology and astronomy are just a few of the sources that they are able to employ to prove their points. Creationists tend to argue almost simply that "What God said is right, and that's all you need to know," and quote the book of Genesis to back their arguments. Scientically, that is a very poor way to form an argument.
Start quoting more sources than the Bible (which I see you had in your long-winded post earlier; that is good) more often, and this will give you a little bit more leverage.
I will, when i can. Need library first. Its closed on weekends. Meh.
-
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. ]
What? ID opposes and denies Christianity?!
I dare you to prove that one!! :lol:
Charismatic,
Im still waiting, so just reminding you.
-
Explain how prophets just 'know things'. How Jesus knew, the samarian woman at the well, had 5 husbands. He only just met her a minute ago, and knew that. Prophets have spoken to me, and just knew things. Explain that.
:lol: First prove that those events actually happened. I might as well be asking you to prove that Buddha or Rama did something for all the logic your question displays.
If I asked you to prove that Rama did something what would you tell me? That you don't believe Rama exists in the first place. And that's your whole problem. You similarly need to prove that Jesus existed and did miracles scientifically before you can demand scientific answers for how.
-
I think its clear we are talking to someone that doesnt understand the first thing about logic, I doubt its possible to reason with someone like that.Sometimes Creationists are Creationists just because they are scientically ignorent, I dont think Charismatic is one of them.
-
The saddest thing is that he keeps attempting to roll evolution up into this giant God-disproving theory and assumes that if he can prove God exists in any way, shape, size or form that it means he wins. Worse he keeps doing this even after being told repeatedly that it doesn't matter in the slightest whether God exists or not. There are large numbers of Christians who believe in God and still think that evolution is correct. Proving God exists is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
-
Well what do you expect me to scientificly bable on to?
The psudo magnetic force, as related to polygons, indicate that there is some subatomic mass in the nuclear level. Therefore, that implys that there is a force of nature beyond the eyespectrum. That can be proven by the ganacosis level of nuclear blasts, spursing out when force is applied to them. So, with these hard core facts, the solid theory deriven from them, is that, the force beyond nature really is God. He wrote his name on every cell, we just dont have microscopes to see that small.
There topic proven. ???
We don't expect babbling. We expect the merest hint that you've actually read the numerous replies and information therein, rather than just looked for ways to ignore it. If you're writing off replies as 'babbling', it just shows you're simply not willing to even try to understand the, because most of us have bent over backwards to phrase stuff in as clear and concise a manner as possible.
If there is such talk, im not the one to ask. Im not a scientific man. I know general facts about Evolution, ID, and Natural Selection, Genetic Mutation, Surivial of the Fittest etc., tho some, (as have been pointed out) are incorrectly stated.
Prove a beleif that is proved in various ways (GOD\Creationism\Christianity). Your beleifs are proved in single lined ways(Evolution,ID,etc.); thus more 'hard core facts', and 'scientific terms'.
As i said, I will get some books sometime and quote and respond form them, soon (week or so). Il try to get whatever else info i can from the (dammed) net, untill then.
This is very odd. your previous attempts to reconcile the bible - particularly Noahs Ark & the flood - with scientific knowledge have failed. You've not provided any proof, and at best what you have provided is a list of buzzwords, left unexplained, that correlate to scientifically flawed theories. I have no idea what a 'single lined way' is supposed to mean, but I can only assume it comes back to a general ignorance on the weight of evidence supporting evolution (not to mention how that evidence is used to form and revise the theory).
EDIT: God is not a science. God is a being. FAIK, he cant be proved totally by scientific means.
We see that there is a God, and his dealings with us, in the Bible. The old testament is full of how God saved the isralites. The new testament, is how Gods son came and did many miracles, saved the world, etc.
None of which is of any relevance here nor enters the discussion. We've seen both the Catholic church and Church of England endorse evolution. Part of the purpose of ID, of course, is to attack science because it contradicts the literal reading of the bible (and hence the 'powerbase' of those funding ID), and in turn allow the rather disturbing promotion of religion in the science classroom.
That for one. Today, there are people who, get prayed for, and their illness goes away. They are on their death bed, of cancer, and they are prayed over, and their cancer is totally gone the next day. The SCIENTISTS dont know what hapened, or how or why the cancer went away, dissapeared. I hear of people being raised from the dead, comeing back to life, and walking and talking just like before. I myself have seen people in church services get healed. Iv seen demons being casted out. Demons are on the spiritual level. You cant always see or hear them by our physical eyes and ears. People cant exactly prove they exist, yet many have seen them. Same with god. Many have had visions, like in the bible, nowadays. You cant prove they had it, but they did. People have seen angels. People in the bible have seen angels. How can you prove with science, what people saw?
This is again illustrative of the flaws of relying upon religion as an arguement. Look at your phraseology - 'How can you prove with science, what people saw?'. you've already come up with a conclusion, before even considering how to examine the evidence. We all know the human eye, and the human mind behind it, is prone to exaggeration, misinterpretation, and inserting hidden meaning. That's why we rely upon science as a guide, not the best guess of the eye, because science provides a framework of rational investigation and neutral observation.
There's power in belief. Power over the people who share that belief. How many corrupt televangelists have we seen? Do you go and get a doctor to examine the people you see healed? Do you check the pulse of the person 'raised from the dead'? I hesitate to note that a few centuries ago mental illness was chalked up to being possession.
And even when it does happen, do we have proof of any correlation? 100 people get cancer, 100 familes pray, one goes into remission. And you assume that one person is Gods will, some divine act, even as another 99 are dying. Because it's easier to believe in a miracle than look for a hard answer.
And y'know what? None of this matters to evolution, because evolution is not inexplicable. That's the whole point. Why else, do you think, does the largest Christian denomination in the world support it?
Its a proof on a whole different level, thats what iv been saying. Some of it can coincide and be proven on the scientific level, but ATM i dont know where to start. Few if any.
Explain healing. People go to a 'faith healer' with a tumor or some disease, and they get healed. Faith, beleif. Jesus said 'your faith has made you whole' in one instance. Explain faith. Explain faith healing. Faith in God.
Placebo effect. Explain how people with heart conditions who know others are praying for them have an increased mortality. Again, off the topic of evolution itself.
I know ALOT about the spiritual aspect of christianity. A bit less, as you know, about the scientific proofs of it. Yet i know God is real and he exists.
Prove subspace or hperspace exists. You dont know, you cant see it. Its a whole nother freaking realm. Same with heaven\hell. it is a whole nother world, yet we cant see or hear it. We know they exist. Some people have seen heavon (a friend of mine had a vision of hell once) when they almost died. Explain that. Explain the whole 'i saw light' thing many have said. Explain visions, scientificaly. Proficy. Explain how prophets just 'know things'. How Jesus knew, the samarian woman at the well, had 5 husbands. He only just met her a minute ago, and knew that. Prophets have spoken to me, and just knew things. Explain that.
The near death experience (light at the end of the tunnel) is believed to be caused by brain activity within the parts responsible for dreams, aka REM intrusion. There was a recent study supporting it, although a lot of the mechanisms are still being investigated (this is the brilliant thing about science, y'see - no assumptions) and you'd expect a bit of a shortage of willing test subjects.
Anything specified within the bible is to be taken, from a historical perspective, with a liberal pinch of salt. We know it's not the literal truth, because we can disprove a literal reading. If you're wanting to start and promote a religion, you're hardly likely to put it in anything beyond the most positive way, are you? Ultimately, if you want to regard the bible as literal truth, you have to accept every other religious book (Quran, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, Guru Granth Sahib, Vinaya Pitaka, etc) must be true, as they all can cite the same amount of supporting information in pretty much the same liberally interpreted manner.
That's not to say there isn't some historical correlation to the bible, as most myths have some basis in fact.
Prophecy... prophecy can be pretty reasonably said to occur in every religion that we know of; usually it's so vague as to be liberally interpreted in a way to fit the events you pick. Take Nostradamus. Or take Revelations; most non-theologans/historians recognise it as being most likely a disquised attack on Nero (who oppressed Christians as a threat to the empire), but you'll see it cited as evidence for stuff like RFID being the devils mark.
What you have to realise, is that it's very easy to pretend to read someones mind; for example, Derren Brown is a guy in the UK, usually Channel 4, who knows a bit about the psychology of tricking people into thinking he is psychic. And he basically uses subtle casual clues to trick people into this - things like common names or numbers, reciting family members (father, mother, son...) or things of that ilk until he sees a subtle involuntary action, etc. And he manages to convince (and I mena convince, as in 'that's 100% correct') people that, for example, he can read their mind, or dreams, or that he's talked to the dead, or that he knows their entire medical history, etc. It's all about psychology, basically - you can read peoples reactions, use some fairly common nouns or events as 'hints' to get them, and make them think you are geniunely able to read their minds. It's not easy, of course, and I couldn't do it - but do you think all those gypsy palmreaders are psychics?
(Actually, apparently there's a really easy trick you can try. Basically, you go up to a random person. Ask them for something simple and easy, which they'll willing give. Keep asking this for a bit, so they're in a mental chain of politely 'giving' to you. Then ask for their wallet.)
Watch this please!
Here's a clip;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDCrXNVCTlY (watch right to the end)
EDIT; this one is of relation even more so; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJjNfHEpFTc
Remember; this guy is a professional trickster, to lack a better term. He's a confessed fake, and those 2 clips are from a show showing how easy it is.
Again, evolution isn't challenging your belief in God. It's challenging your literalism, because we can see evidence of evolution, and we can show it works. Are you suggesting that what we cannot see means more than what we can? That an infinite possibility of things that might not exist override what we know does?
-
The psudo magnetic force, as related to polygons, indicate that there is some subatomic mass in the nuclear level. Therefore, that implys that there is a force of nature beyond the eyespectrum. That can be proven by the ganacosis level of nuclear blasts, spursing out when force is applied to them. So, with these hard core facts, the solid theory deriven from them, is that, the force beyond nature really is God. He wrote his name on every cell, we just dont have microscopes to see that small.
There topic proven. ???
- Where on earth did this come from, as you certainly can't be its originator.
- Can you at least make sure that the terms you are using are spelled remotely correctly?
- Can you explain how this somehow is more than a series of unconnected assertions?
- What does this have to do with anything?
And if you had been reading this thread at all, you'd find that no one is trying to prove or disprove God. Proving God wouldn't disprove evolution in any way, shape or form, no more than proving evolution disproves God. Totally seperate arguments.
If there is such talk, im not the one to ask. Im not a scientific man. I know general facts about Evolution, ID, and Natural Selection, Genetic Mutation, Surivial of the Fittest etc., tho some, (as have been pointed out) are incorrectly stated.
And yet your inability to produce even tangental responses to almost all the facts raised against you clearly shows that your knowledge is, at best, severly limited. If you knew the "facts" about evolution at all, you never would have posted that life began at the big bang. And yet, it's appeared in orange twice in this thread.
EDIT: I also want to clear this up:
Because according to current science they were wrong, possibly due to new data or simply because they were not as well-informed and did not bother to try and extend their knowledge on the subject.
Can you, perhaps, give some backing that they are wrong. Because, you guys have been nailing me for not haveing backing ATM, and you are doing the same. How do you know they are wrong, yet, dont know why they are? If you didnt know, wouldent you, just as well, beleive it was still right?
Ok, well lets make this nice and simple. The distinction between "Ape" and "Modern Ape" is extremely important here. I'm going to refer you to the Human Taxonomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Taxonomy) page at Wikipedia.
Humans and great apes converge in this classification scheme at the superfamily (Hominoids). Evolutionary ancestory species of both families are found in that superfamily. (Monkeys come in at the suborder or order, depending on the species, since they diverged earlier. Biological taxonomy of this form predates Darwinian evolutionary theory and while it should be noted that this classification page is revised to fit current evolutionary data even the old taxonomy tree was very much in line with evolution.) Evolutionary ancestors to humans are found within the specific genus Homo (or the subtribe above us, depending on how fine-grained you make the table). Therefore if you say that man decended from Apes you are not being specific enough about how broad you are being with the term "Ape". Man did not evolve from modern apes (gorillas, chimps) but did evolve from a species still in the Hominid family. To say he evolved from a modern ape is categorically incorrect. To say that he evolved from an ape is actually correct, as man is still classified as an ape. The distinction lies in what you consider "ape" to include, and is thus purely semantic.
-
Well first of all, proveing there is a god may not be possibly done by hard core facts. As we dont have gods cells or whatever hes made out of, if hes made out of anything. Faith in god opposed to substancial 2+2=4 facts. You expect me to throw some formula or fossil of a angel out on the tabel to prove it?
I dont think God can be proved unless he makes you a beleiver personally.
I am overwhelmed at the stuff im up agienst here, and you dont seem to be understanding my position.
In a sense, yes, I do expect you to prove the existance of God. For you cannot have Intelligent Design without a Designer. And if not God in the literal sense, then certainly God-like. By your own admission, proving God is impossible...and yet that is what you have set out to do. That is what Intelligent Design is in its most basic form: proving the existance of God.
-
Actually Charismatic has renounced ID as being some sort of third way that has nothing to do with Christianity or Evolution.
He's wrong but let's not try to claim that he supports ID when he's actually a young-Earth creationist in the classic sense of the term.
Besides proving God exists doesn't prove or disprove evolution and leads to large amounts of off-topic. I'd rather see Charismatc attempt to defend his original assertion that evolution is wrong.
-
Can you, perhaps, give some backing that they are wrong. Because, you guys have been nailing me for not haveing backing ATM, and you are doing the same. How do you know they are wrong, yet, dont know why they are? If you didnt know, wouldent you, just as well, beleive it was still right?
Mmm, did you read the wikipedia articles I linked to?
There has also been a fairly consistent bit about (Assuming a constant rate of genetic mutation) chimpanzees and humans diverged from a common ancestor roughly 6 million years ago. Perhaps the best chart I found was this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/Hominidae.PNG/300px-Hominidae.PNG
There's also a fun bit of info on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Some other info on the discovery of Homo Sapiens fossils (mostly relevant to the young earth discussion): http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo.html
That article does list some information on the dating method used, 40AR/39AR, which was apparently done using feldspar crystals in the area. Considering that it mentions that it's a variant of Potassium-Argon dating, I'd guess that it's done by measuring the amount of Argon-40 in the feldspar crystal (naturally occuring Potassium-40 decays into Argon-40 with a half-life of 1.250x10^9 years). A webpage with a discussion on P-A dating. (http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html)
-
A very long criticism of Potassium-Argon dating (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20K-Ar%20dating%20is%20inaccurate)
And the rebuttal (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/woodmorappe_shotgun_henke.htm)
-
Finally got through page 6. Took me all day. Dam. Starting page 7 (im skipping page 5, wel the 2nd half of it, for now).
Im trying to keep up.
Page 6. Shade: He took every species that was avalible that day and age. Maby not stuff like plankton or fish tho. The simpler versions. Like before dogs interbreeded to make the vast majority of types of dogs there are today. Well, Noah had many many years to work on the Arc with himself, his wife, and his sons\daughters. I think he worked on it for 30+ years maby, but that is a out of the blue guess, as I am not sure. Im thinking maby 100~ years, but im not sure so I wont say that. As for finding every species; he had plenty of time, and its very likely God caused the animals to come to him, or the like, so he could complete his task of captureing every species.
The ‘clean’ animals were taken 7 male and 7 female of each species. The ‘unclean’ were by 3’s. IIRC. Someone mentioned that the bible contradicted itself there. I don’t know what they are talking about, as it is clear of the numbers of each.
Wild F.: Well, adam and eve disobeyed god, they allowed sin to enter the world. Sin, death, sickness, and disease. The deadly viruses and stuff like cancer is a reslut. The spiritual realm often reflects the earthly one, so to speak. Don’t take this out of context.
Nuclear1: The Canopy theory explains this. The canopy served as a shiled, and let only a few of the UV and Gamma rays of the sun, to hit the earth. Light was able to come to the earth, but the bad rays were stopped. This caused people to live near 1000 years. Plants were hudge. Trees were giant also.
(Im not sure about this next segment. But il say it anyways.) On that note, that’s what dinasours were. Large versions of some of the animals. The reptiles anyways.
Man was made by God to live forever and never die. But sin came and our lifes keep getting shorter. Sin affects our gentics over the generations and causes us to live less. It has greater and greater toll on our lifes.
Aldo: No way it could simply dissapear afterwords? Well, I learned this in Kindergarden, but, the world is, what, over 75% water and about 25% actual land? Um.. I wonder how that relates. Hmm. Beats me.
Kara: I must prove a designer is needed before I can claim that? What? Must the pot prove it needs a clay(pot)maker before it can say it was made\designed? Your argument is fallacious.
How does a simple cell one day decide, ‘im going to get more complex’? Take this for example. The beginning cells, when a baby is created, have all the info for ‘what every other cell I make will do’. Each cell has its own job, function, wether to make an ear or eye etc. They do what their programmed to do. The origional cell(s) have all the ‘blueprints’, and it does not simply change them.
Please explain the correct meaning of ‘Natural Selection’, then.
Wasent Radiocarbon dateing said to have been a flawd way of dateing things?
FFS. What I said about ID was not wrong. Prove your soruces. Mine said, well, what I said. There is an intellegent force, not god. They fight christianity and evolution at the same time. Some may be ‘predominately’ christian, but they sure as heck don’t claim they are. They say some being is doing it. Not god. They mean god but they don’t say its ‘god’.
Firecrack: My list does support ID. It does not support evolution. How are they wrong or foolish?
Im not talking about abosilute ages because they go back 100,000 years up to 1 million or billion years. All of them are way past the approx. 10,000 years creationists believe the earth exitsted. So it would be pointless.
Id like to hear more about this ‘different groupings of fossils being in different places’ statement. Im interesed.
Shade: God created the universe basicaly how it is. He created earth in its middle stages already. He made it as if it was there for that long- made the light already be reaching earth. This is a belief based on reasoning, not exactly facts.
How do Evolutionitsts believe the universe began?
Stratcomm: What changes are being made in our own race?
What if the single male and single female had a whole lot of kids?
A good deal of them died at once, because of the flood.
There were animals that died before the flood. Mostlikely a good deal of time before the flood. That explains why their older.
Distributed evenly? Do tornados distribute debree evenly? Its nonsence.
Aldo: I liked your analogy of evolution, as keeping the correct letters for the next generation. Kudos.
Please talk about the ‘pole reversals’ some more. Id like you to explain it in more detail.
“Also it ignores the theory of DNA and protein evolution.” Explain more please.
“Creationists believe that God created all animals and living things at Creation. Though they may have changed since God created the universe, they didn’t change by natural selection or mutation, but changed within fixed limits. Not nearly as extreme as the Evolutionists believe. So the animals we see today are mainly how God created them at Creation. -Charismatic
Contradicted by fossil evidence. Also fails to explain why God would create something that needed to be changed - isnn't His creation supposed to be perfecT?-Aldo” As I said before, sin entered the earth, stuff changed and happened how it wasent susposed to. Ect ect ect..
“Here's another thing - how likely is it that an omnipotent and omniscent being just pops into existence, creates the earth, places stuff in the Earth contradicting the story he, she or it tells people, waits several thousand years before making itself known (and allowing the likes of polytheistic Greek, etc religions to toddle on), and makes such a botch job that they need to keep coming back and wiping out or modifying animals?” Once again id like to point out, the first link I gave you guys (not the one in the report). We are comeing at this topic with differences in opinion and biases. You don’t know how certing things make sence, and I do. But the way your portraying these certain thigns I don’t agree with. He was. He didn’t become into existance, as our logic suggests. He did not have parents ect. He just ‘was’. He said “tell them that I AM sent you” IIRC, in one case. We just cant understand this just yet. We are only human and cant comprehend this. He has no contradictions. He made himself known. Adam and Eve knew him. Noah knew him, the others refused to believe in him. Allowing other religons? -Free will. He only wiped us out once. He didn’t need to modify animals.
“Perhaps one of the most important issues - how does the flood explain fossil mineralization? Because, y'see, fossils aren't bones - they're replaced by minerals. We have archeological evidence from biblical and pre-biblical times that shows there's not enough time for this to happen.” Wheres your evidence.
Kara: About ME, maby they were not talking about the timline of the earth. Maby they were.
Turny: “does anyone wanna explain, without using evolution, how there are many different races, all of which a directly descended from a single white (according to many religious paintings) couple?”
Paintings are paintings to make the picutre more socially and culturely pleasing. Their skincolor is unknown and extremely irrevelant. When they had enough decendents, they split up (After the tower of babel, and the newly developed different languages) and went different ways. They form then, in their respective area, over the thousands of years, their physical appearance changed to the respects of their surrondings ect. Skin color, and probably bone structures changed alittle, as iv stated before.
It does not make you God. In the bible it says something to the effect of, “God created us. Everything we create was in effect, created by him; as we are his creation.”
-
Looks like Charismatic wins.
-
Do you have any idea how hard it is to parse orange text and then to come up with responses to all of them?
Charismatic, wikipedia is as good a place to start as any. If you are looking for evidence for something that's been said in response to you, that's a good place to start. Not perfect by any means, but it'll at least show you that we're not making this stuff up. It's also not as notoriously biased as a couple of the sites that you've been citing from. I'll get to a full response eventually.
-
I guess I will make just a few responses, just to get into the discussion a little. My replies are given in blue.
Man was made by God to live forever and never die. But sin came and our lifes keep getting shorter. Sin affects our gentics over the generations and causes us to live less. It has greater and greater toll on our lifes. --> So why have life spans been growing longer for the past several thousand years, and explosively so during the past few hundred? Less sin?:rolleyes:
Also, do you have any _empirical_ evidence to support this theory? Have sinners been found to get more genetic mutations?
Please explain the correct meaning of ‘Natural Selection’, then. --> "Natural Selection" is where a species undergoes changes due to random mutations causing certain members of a population to have increased odds of surviving certain environmental pressures. The individuals that do not get these mutations are less likely to survive, so over time, the "beneficial" mutation will become more common, and thus the species changes. Hence the name "natural selection", meaning that "natural" environmental pressures "select" the individuals of a population that are most capable of surviving and reproducing. (This is a very simple and watered-down explanation, but I'm sure someone else can describe it in more detail.)
Wasent Radiocarbon dateing said to have been a flawd way of dateing things? --> Read what was posted on the previous page about carbon dating.
Shade: God created the universe basicaly how it is. He created earth in its middle stages already. He made it as if it was there for that long- made the light already be reaching earth. This is a belief based on reasoning, not exactly facts.
How do Evolutionitsts believe the universe began? --> Evolution doesn't discuss how the universe came to be, or has come to be the way it is now. That discussion lies in astrophysics. Therefore your question is (and I'm sorry for saying this), meaningless. Some evolutionists beleive that God created the universe. Others (like myself) go by the Big Bang Theory (though that theory can't explain what happened before the Big Bang). But heck, a few even go by the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory.:p
There were animals that died before the flood. Mostlikely a good deal of time before the flood. That explains why their older. --> So why are there fossils dated back to before you believe the Earth was created? If you are going to respond to this by saying that there is a flaw in the dating techniques, then you must say what that flaw is, and the evidence to support it. Otherwise, you're statement is not a valid arguement, and instead only conjecture.
Their skincolor is unknown and extremely irrevelant. When they had enough decendents, they split up (After the tower of babel, and the newly developed different languages) and went different ways. They form then, in their respective area, over the thousands of years, their physical appearance changed to the respects of their surrondings ect. Skin color, and probably bone structures changed alittle, as iv stated before. --> Ahem. THAT... IS... EVOLUTION.
And here's why: You're saying that their physical appearance changed due to the enviroment. For example, the population that recieves greater exposure to sunlight gets darker skin over time. This would be due to individuals in the population who have more skin pigment to have higher survival rates in those climates. This is precisely what evolution is, so, if I understand your above statment correctly, you have just admitted that evolution is plausible, which is in direct contradiction to your entire arguement. If I have made a misunderstanding about what you meant there, then by all means tell us how what you stated is different from evolution.
Ok, that's all. It's 3:00 AM here and I reeeaaally require sleep.
-
ugh, so much...
one thing that's irking me a bit, intelegent design, it is on your side. it says an intelegent designer made the universe, it doesn't come out and say it is God but it's implied, you need to understand ID is creationists trying to use what they see as a loophole in the law to get as much creationism into schools as posable, ID does not contradict creationism, it is simply a simplified version of it, crafted to get around laws saying to can't teach religion as science.
also you say that ages of people are getting shorter and shorter, but humans can live to be 100 years easaly today, 100 years ago you were consitered lucky to reach 60, is the world of today a less sinful place? or is that a bunch of BS that someone told you and you never bothered to look up?
if fossilisation only took a few thousand years, and there have been humans alive all that time then why are all the remains we have found not fossilised? why can we dig up bones from graves in cities mentioned early in the bible (so we know these bodies have been in the ground for the better part of the creationist view of the age of th earth) and they don't show the slightest hint of fossilisation, nor do any animals found in these places? if it didn't take millions of years then logicaly we should be able to dig up an egyptian grave and find fossilised bone, why don't we?
and it sounds like your starting to move to the "God made the earth with all sorts of fake evedence built into it" (like light from distant stars and isotope ratios) idea, if your going to go down such an intelectualy dishonest rout your beleifes must truely have no foundation in reality and you know it. it's like saying God framed us. realy, this is some hard number math stuff here, you must be willing to consiter the posability that the Bible is not a totaly relyable directory of physical knowlage, it says PI=3 (1 kings, chaper 7, vs 23, it says a circular shape that is 10 cubits wide had a circomference of 30), it IS wrong about certan facts, so you can't just blindly accept what it says, and you certanly can't go down the road of 'God made the fossils... to trik you or something'.
-
Shade: God created the universe basicaly how it is. He created earth in its middle stages already. He made it as if it was there for that long- made the light already be reaching earth. This is a belief based on reasoning, not exactly facts.
Where exactly in the bible does it say that?
EDIT: Also, please have some basic courtsey and quote your quotes or at least color your responses differently from the quotations.
-
Finally got through page 6. Took me all day. Dam. Starting page 7 (im skipping page 5, wel the 2nd half of it, for now).
Im trying to keep up.
Kindly quote what you are responding to next time. I've done you the service of doing this, even going so far as to make sure that every time I've quoted you I've kept your colour. I expect similar levels of consideration from you. I've posted a lot on this topic and I expect you to at least quote what you are replying to so that I don't have to re-read the entire page and then try to figure out what the hell you're replying to.
He took every species that was avalible that day and age. Maby not stuff like plankton or fish tho. The simpler versions. Like before dogs interbreeded to make the vast majority of types of dogs there are today.
So you admit that selected breeding can result in the accumulation of large changes then? You admit that in the 4000 years since your supposed flood humans have been able to breed everything from the great dane to the chihuahua? Well at least that's an improvement on the last person I argued with who claimed that chihuahuas weren't selectively bred and had been around since biblical times :rolleyes:
The ‘clean’ animals were taken 7 male and 7 female of each species. The ‘unclean’ were by 3’s. IIRC. Someone mentioned that the bible contradicted itself there. I don’t know what they are talking about, as it is clear of the numbers of each.
Oh for ****'s sake do I now have to correct you about your own religion too? :lol:
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
which is somewhat contradicted by
7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Now I'm sure that there is some stock christian argument to explain that discrepancy, spare me it. I don't particularly care. I mearly quoted it seeing as how you were wondering what the contradiction was. What's important is the the belief that the animals went onto the ark two by two is such a well known part of the whole Noah myth that I'm forced to conclude that you can't know much about the bible either.
As for finding every species; he had plenty of time, and its very likely God caused the animals to come to him, or the like, so he could complete his task of captureing every species.
I think you miss the point. You simply could not fit two every single creature onto the Ark. Remember that we know exactly how big the Ark is. It's 450 feet long. You're expecting this to carry not only all the animals but also food to feed them for at least 7 months! It simply wouldn't all fit.
The Canopy theory explains this. The canopy served as a shiled, and let only a few of the UV and Gamma rays of the sun, to hit the earth. Light was able to come to the earth, but the bad rays were stopped. This caused people to live near 1000 years. Plants were hudge. Trees were giant also.
So if we were to move into lead lined bunkers underground we'd live for 1,000 years then? :lol: Sorry but that is ludicrous
Kara: I must prove a designer is needed before I can claim that? What? Must the pot prove it needs a clay(pot)maker before it can say it was made\designed? Your argument is fallacious.
No it isn't. I pointed to a snowflake as an example of a complex design that occurs due to natural processes and you completely ignored me and simply restated your original answer with barely any changes. If you look at a snowflake under a microscope it looks like it was designed as it has a beautiful pattern to it. Now someone without knowledge of how a crystal forms would look at that snowflake and say "That must have been designed. There is no way something that complex could have happened on its own."
Anyone who said that would be wrong. We understand how and why ice crystals form in patterns like that due to the interactions between the water molecules that make it up.
It is the same with other forms of complexity. You cannot simply state "There must be a designer" while there is an alternative scientific theory that explains the same facts without using one. You may not believe that complexity like this could exist without a designer but that doesn't make you right. I already explained elsewhere using the example of how the world being round that just because something seems unbelieveable doesn't mean it is impossible.
Before you can say that there must be a designer you need to prove it.
How does a simple cell one day decide, ‘im going to get more complex’? Take this for example. The beginning cells, when a baby is created, have all the info for ‘what every other cell I make will do’. Each cell has its own job, function, wether to make an ear or eye etc. They do what their programmed to do. The origional cell(s) have all the ‘blueprints’, and it does not simply change them.
There's an attempt at a question here which I am not grasping. Are you asking why single celled organisms evolved into multi-cellular ones or asking some kind of question about development or something else? If you're going to ask me a question you need to state it more clearly. You ramble on about inconsequencial matters so much that it's hard to pick the signal out from the noise.
Please explain the correct meaning of ‘Natural Selection’, then.
Natural Selection means that animals whose genes express benificial adaptations will tend to have more offspring who will also possess those genes. As a result those genes will become more widespread within the population.
Natural Selection does not require catastrophies to work as you claimed.
Wasent Radiocarbon dateing said to have been a flawd way of dateing things?
Radiocarbon dating is not flawed. Its accuracy is limited to around 50,000 years or so but that is not a flaw any more than the fact a car can't fly is a flaw. When used for the task it is good for radiocarbon dating is pretty accurate.
FFS. What I said about ID was not wrong. Prove your soruces. Mine said, well, what I said. There is an intellegent force, not god. They fight christianity and evolution at the same time. Some may be ‘predominately’ christian, but they sure as heck don’t claim they are. They say some being is doing it. Not god. They mean god but they don’t say its ‘god’.
You have fundementally misunderstood what ID is and have simply assumed that it is a belief that disagrees with evolution and creationism. This is wrong.
The Supreme Court of America has ruled that the teaching of creationism in schools contravenes the constitution. Namely the seperation of church and state (I'm not getting into an argument as to whether this is fair. I'm simply stating it as a fact so save your breath). Some people (mainly christians) disliked this. They wanted to be able to teach creationism in schools but now they couldn't do so. Instead they took several of the arrguments you've tried to use, scribbled out the word God in them and presented them again calling it Intelligent Design and then petitioned to get this taught in schools.
ID is basically creationism like yours but with no mention of God. God is not mentioned not because they don't believe in him but because the second they actually mention God the supreme court will come down on them like a ton of bricks.
So your claim that IDers denounce christianity is completely incorrect. IDers are very strongly christian. They simply don't talk about God when arguing about ID because they know it would instantly torpedo their entire argument.
How do Evolutionitsts believe the universe began?
In a variety of ways. Roman Catholics believe that God created it. As do many Christians who agree with it. Other people think that the Big Bang was the start. Others favoured other theories or beliefs. You are still failing to see that how the universe started is completely irrelevant to this thread.
About ME, maby they were not talking about the timline of the earth. Maby they were.
What? :confused: How does anything to to with Mitochondiral Eve have anything to do with the timeline of the Earth? The two are not connected in any way apart from the fact that ME has been dated to 200,000 years ago. Which is long before you claim the Earth was created.
-
[q]Aldo: No way it could simply dissapear afterwords? Well, I learned this in Kindergarden, but, the world is, what, over 75% water and about 25% actual land? Um.. I wonder how that relates. Hmm. Beats me.[/q]
Water is incompressible and rock is porous (that's why we get groundwater sources), so we can't just say it got smaller. THere's simply no physical way you can get get that amount of water; to re-emphasise, Mount Ararat is over 16000 feet and IIRC is explicitly mentioned in the bible. The Bible explicitly mentions water being over 40 feet above the highest mountain (or is it 20? Anyways, minor factor). So that's a flood that addeds over 16,000 feet to the earths diameter. That vast amount of water would also leave very clear sediment and torrent trails whilst draining - which don't exist. There's also, to reemphasise, no physical way for that amount of water to fall without massive climatological consequences, and both the fossil record, existing waterlife, sediment record, and documented history of disparate ancient cultures contradict any form of global flood. Unless, again, you'd care to explain how a 16000ft+ high flood managed to pass by without even touching the Grat Pyramid at Cheops (for example).
[q]“Also it ignores the theory of DNA and protein evolution.” Explain more please.[/q]
Says it all, really, but ok. Bear in mind this is abiogenesis, not evolutionary theory; evolution is simple a nice word to describe the process.
Put it simply, the spontaneous formation of modern proteins is unlinkley - improbably - due to the complexity. (NB: Miller-Urey did show spontaneous formation of amino acids is possible, though). Protein evolution simply proposes the explanation of proteins forming over time; i.e. you start off with a simple 3 amino acid cluster, then that cluster bumps into another and forms a more complex one, and eventually you end up with modern proteins. you'll have to forgive me for not being aware of the exact vagarities of the theory, but here's some more info http://www.eb.mpg.de/dept1/pevolution.html
This - http://www.smithinst.ac.uk/Projects/ESGI40/ESGI40-Keele/Report/Protein.pdf - is a more detailed study.
DNA evolution - also RNA - is the (again abiogenesis) theory of RNA/DNA replication arising from the similar combination of amino acids (building blocks of proteins) and purines and pyramidines (building blocks of DNA/RNA molecules). Both these preceeding 2 have been found to spontaneously form in test tubes; oxygen free climates are known to favour spontaneous synthesis of organic molecules.
Cairns-Smith proposed the idea of the evolution of replicating RNA evolving from a series of other replicating 'entities', through the process of cumulative selection. When you think about it, if something develops the capacity to replicate, even a molecule, then it's going to grow in numbers. Likewise if you have more efficient replicators. Cairns-Smith proposed the original replicators were based upon inorganic crystals such as silicates, later superceded by organic replicators. The molecular structure of crystals, just for emphasis, mean they can both replicate and 'evolved' - the latter sense in that they can develop flaws, which break off, and form new crystal groups, which break off with flaws...etc. This is kind of an important re-emphasis upon small stemps leading to complexity leading to what is seen as design.
Anyways, Cairns-smith believes that these replicators used organic molecules as 'tools' in part of their replication; for example, exploiting to break up minerals. Organic molecules are used quite frequently in inorganic chemistry due to their ability to influence flow. Anyways, it follows that this clay - our replicator, which adds advantageous features via something akin to natural selection - develops the ability to synthesize these molecules. The suggestion is that RNA would be around a long time before it became replicating (NB: RNA-like molecules would tend to coat clay particles due to having negatively charged molecules). when it did become self-replicating - perhaps advantageous as a manufacturing control for the clay - it eventually became more efficient and thus replaced the inorganic silicates. And eventually we end up with DNA and replication etc etc.
This is just one single theory, of course, and (the chemical concepts of it) it goes beyond my understanding. Cairns-Smith would be a good place to look for the detailed concept. There are 2 things to remember, though. Firstly, whilst this all may seem complex and infeasible, it's important to remember that these are simply the actions of chemical reactions which happen to decrease the chance of something being destroyed. Secondly, and this is very important for abiogenesis, we have to remember that we don't have a time machine, and there are likely to be things - precursors - we can't find in nature today. Dawkins used an analogy of stonehenge - if you look at it nowadays, you think 'how the hell could a weak bunch of druids build it?'. But if you can come up with a feasible explanation such as scaffolding, then it's not so hard (note the feasible part - that means we don't crowbar the supernatural in before looking for something scientifically plausible and supportable by known facts).
And it's worth noting that this is again abiogenesis; whilst there are heavy references to evolutionary principles like selection, we don't apply evolution to this. We further develop the theories of abiogenesis 'alone'; if it helps that evolutionary ideas are useful in explaining complexity, they are used. For example, you've not seen mention of sexual selection here, and the preceding was related to chemistry more than biology.
[q]As I said before, sin entered the earth, stuff changed and happened how it wasent susposed to. Ect ect ect..[/q]
You'll have to come up something a hell of a lot more concrete than that.
[q]Once again id like to point out, the first link I gave you guys (not the one in the report). We are comeing at this topic with differences in opinion and biases. You don’t know how certing things make sence, and I do. But the way your portraying these certain thigns I don’t agree with. He was. He didn’t become into existance, as our logic suggests. He did not have parents ect. He just ‘was’. He said “tell them that I AM sent you” IIRC, in one case. We just cant understand this just yet. We are only human and cant comprehend this. He has no contradictions. He made himself known. Adam and Eve knew him. Noah knew him, the others refused to believe in him. Allowing other religons? -Free will. He only wiped us out once. He didn’t need to modify animals.[/q]
So why can we prove that animals changed? Not to mention... from a rational perspective, God cannot just 'exist'. Otherwise, why not say DNA 'exists' (for example) and be done with it? you're effectively admitting here that the existence of (a) God runs contrary to human logic, so what other logic could we use? Why would God create a race that didn't have the ability to comprehend him due to issues of rationality and logic? (why would God create a world that contradicts his - literal reading of - holy book, too?)
The problem here is that it's not about opinion. It's about scientific, documented, neutral fact. That's the whole point behind this problem here. We have evolution, a documented, studied, proven time and time again theory. We have ID/creationism, based on a 2000+ year old book of mythology which we already know has large parts contradicted by geology, history, etc. And the latter is being held as equal in scientific terms, when anyone can look at the evidence - the honest evidence - and see it isn't.
[q]Wheres your evidence.[/q]
I cited it quite a while back, actually. We have, quite simply, remains from dates around or predating that given for the flood (and we can verify this using carbon dating, because we can predict any skew up to an age of about 60,000 years), and they are neither fossilized nor (obviously) decayed away.
[q]Paintings are paintings to make the picutre more socially and culturely pleasing. Their skincolor is unknown and extremely irrevelant. When they had enough decendents, they split up (After the tower of babel, and the newly developed different languages) and went different ways. They form then, in their respective area, over the thousands of years, their physical appearance changed to the respects of their surrondings ect. Skin color, and probably bone structures changed alittle, as iv stated before.
It does not make you God. In the bible it says something to the effect of, “God created us. Everything we create was in effect, created by him; as we are his creation.”
[/q]
So God made inexplicable random changes to human appearance for the hell of it?
You do realise that evolution explains human skin colour (for example) in a far more concise and sensible way than that, don't you?
EDIT; it amazes me, really; all this liberal reintepretation of the bible to fit certain facts, the ignorance of certain other facts that can't be justified by liberal reinterpretation, all result in an answer infinately more illogical and inconsistent than that evolution is accused of giving!
-
Finally got through page 6. Took me all day. Dam. Starting page 7 (im skipping page 5, wel the 2nd half of it, for now).
Im trying to keep up.
You're going to start finding spam soon. There's a good three pages that you'll be able to just skip.
Page 6. Shade: He took every species that was avalible that day and age. Maby not stuff like plankton or fish tho. The simpler versions. Like before dogs interbreeded to make the vast majority of types of dogs there are today. Well, Noah had many many years to work on the Arc with himself, his wife, and his sons\daughters. I think he worked on it for 30+ years maby, but that is a out of the blue guess, as I am not sure. Im thinking maby 100~ years, but im not sure so I wont say that. As for finding every species; he had plenty of time, and its very likely God caused the animals to come to him, or the like, so he could complete his task of captureing every species.
The point was not that Noah was or was not some great engineer, but rather that there is no physical way he could have constructed a ship as large as it was supposed to be (much less as large as it would need to be) with the materials or techniques that he had available. It's not clear that we could construct such a ship today. Nevermind that a worldwide flood, as has been pointed out countless times, could not have happened when you say it did because we have historical records from other parts of the world (Egypt) that make absolutely no mention of anything of the sort.
The next question, if you're going to say that God made all of the animals come to Noah, how do you explain Australia? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas get to Canaan (oh hell, let's be more historically clear. Mesopotamia), exactly? And I won't even go in to how you're completely forgetting about plant life, which is a hugely diverse kingdom in and of itself.
The ‘clean’ animals were taken 7 male and 7 female of each species. The ‘unclean’ were by 3’s. IIRC. Someone mentioned that the bible contradicted itself there. I don’t know what they are talking about, as it is clear of the numbers of each.
Something about "by twos", IIRC. Not sure what translation that would have come out of though.
Wild F.: Well, adam and eve disobeyed god, they allowed sin to enter the world. Sin, death, sickness, and disease. The deadly viruses and stuff like cancer is a reslut. The spiritual realm often reflects the earthly one, so to speak. Don’t take this out of context.
I'm not sure how we should take that in context, to be frank. How it's at all relevant to anything besides your beliefs is beyond me, quite frankly, and it really sounds more like a rationalization than an answer to the question.
Nuclear1: The Canopy theory explains this. The canopy served as a shiled, and let only a few of the UV and Gamma rays of the sun, to hit the earth. Light was able to come to the earth, but the bad rays were stopped. This caused people to live near 1000 years. Plants were hudge. Trees were giant also.
Magic shield! There is no composition of atmospheric that would effectively explain this, period. Such a canopy would block out too much visible and infrared light for plant life to survive. And if you're suggesting that water was this "magic substance" then WHERE DID IT ALL GO?!? See later for why your previous explanation doesn't fly. We both know that the canopy theory is just one way of trying to make the flood plausable.
Oh, and disease and lifespan are not only affected by cosmic radiation. Local toxins, disease, and most importantly simple physical breakdown of the body are the limiting factor on human lifespan.
(Im not sure about this next segment. But il say it anyways.) On that note, that’s what dinasours were. Large versions of some of the animals. The reptiles anyways.
(EDIT) What the hell is wrong with this quote. It's clearly supposed to be orange, and it is properly terminated, yet it refuses to be orange. :confused:
No, dinosaurs were not reptiles. They were not the forerunners to modern reptiles. Their closest living relatives are actually (shock!) birds, or at least that's what current evidence points to.
Man was made by God to live forever and never die. But sin came and our lifes keep getting shorter. Sin affects our gentics over the generations and causes us to live less. It has greater and greater toll on our lifes.
I'll give you that at least this is at least internally consistant. What it lacks though is any form of evidence, and flies totally in the face of the conclusions that every analysis of aging has ever shown. In reality, 8,000 years ago (roughly when you claim the world was created), analysis of remains tells us that the human lifespan was, on the high side, less than 35. Today it is 65 or so. Other than the bible, there is nothing to suggest that people once lived longer than they do today. As far as I know, not even any crackpot theories.
Aldo: No way it could simply dissapear afterwords? Well, I learned this in Kindergarden, but, the world is, what, over 75% water and about 25% actual land? Um.. I wonder how that relates. Hmm. Beats me.
:wtf:
You do know the definiition of "volume", correct? Water is very incompressable in liquid form, as has already been pointed out. Repeatedly. What this means is that regardless of temperature or pressure, water in liquid form will occupy roughly one cubic meter per 1000kg of liquid. And mass is a direct function of the number of molecules of a substance present, so for water volume is also most direcly related to the number of molecules present. So you're saying there was enough water to cover the tallest mountains in the world, well that means that you've got to account for the volume of watter 8890 meters high all across the face of the world, including over the oceans. The volume for this water comes to (does some simple math) about 2.8*10^41 cubic meters. Taking only the water needed to raise the oceans themselves by that much still leaves us with a whopping 2.1*10^41 cubic meters of water, not counting that which would actually have flooded the land. If this layer of water was in the atmosphere, then you'd be looking at a global sheet of water hanging in the air with a thickness of over 4 miles. And that's also far too much water to just dissapear. Does the problem with this not begin to become apparent?
Kara: I must prove a designer is needed before I can claim that? What? Must the pot prove it needs a clay(pot)maker before it can say it was made\designed? Your argument is fallacious.
How does a simple cell one day decide, ‘im going to get more complex’? Take this for example. The beginning cells, when a baby is created, have all the info for ‘what every other cell I make will do’. Each cell has its own job, function, wether to make an ear or eye etc. They do what their programmed to do. The origional cell(s) have all the ‘blueprints’, and it does not simply change them.
The transition from single-celled organisms to multi-celled ones is one of the less documented transitions, in part because it happened so long ago and in part because the transition would have occured in such small organisms. However, it is a valid point. There are several theories as to just how that happened (most relying on multiple single-celled organisms forming a colony, which then developed into a more complex organism over time). See the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity) for a high-level overview. I'm not a biologist, so I can't really offer any more explanation than is there without going to great lengths to look it up.
Please explain the correct meaning of ‘Natural Selection’, then.
Wasent Radiocarbon dateing said to have been a flawd way of dateing things?
Nope, it's considered to be one of the most accurate actually as long as you take the proper variables into consideration. Radioactive decay rates are some of the most constant things in nature; you can set your watch by it - literally (that's how the atomic clock works). The ID/ creationist camp would like you to believe that it's not accurate, but that's only with the most naive of methods.
FFS. What I said about ID was not wrong. Prove your soruces. Mine said, well, what I said. There is an intellegent force, not god. They fight christianity and evolution at the same time. Some may be ‘predominately’ christian, but they sure as heck don’t claim they are. They say some being is doing it. Not god. They mean god but they don’t say its ‘god’.
ID credits God with creation, period. You won't find any official source that comes out and says that, as the entire point of it is to get creationism into the classroom and two centuries of constitutional law would be violated if the used God as the creator. After all, what is God in your explanation but that designer?
Firecrack: My list does support ID. It does not support evolution. How are they wrong or foolish?
Im not talking about abosilute ages because they go back 100,000 years up to 1 million or billion years. All of them are way past the approx. 10,000 years creationists believe the earth exitsted. So it would be pointless.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. There are "old-earth" creationists who do not take the 6000 year date that a literal interpretation of the bible yields as being the age of the earth, instead settling on something much older. At least they don't have to try to argue that the Grand Canyon was carved in 40 days.
Id like to hear more about this ‘different groupings of fossils being in different places’ statement. Im interesed.
What this is essentially refering to is fossils of animals being in the same geographic location as their modern-day descendents. This is usually at a continental scale, more or less. The point is, if the tossed salad approach to the layerinig of fossils, being mixed around by the flood, were true (already debunked in more detail than was really necessary) then the geographical distribution wouldn't follow.
Shade: God created the universe basicaly how it is. He created earth in its middle stages already. He made it as if it was there for that long- made the light already be reaching earth. This is a belief based on reasoning, not exactly facts.
How do Evolutionitsts believe the universe began?
First, there are not "evolutionists" in the sense that there are creationists. We are not followers of any doctrine of thought other than that of the scientific method. To characterize everyone who knows evolution happened/happens as "evolutionists" is including people of faith, most notably the heads of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, as being anti-God. It makes a nice us-vs-them mentality if you want but it's patently false to make that generalization. So, with that said: the most commonly accepted theory in the scientific community is that the universe started with the big bang, approximately 13 billion years ago (give or take a billion or two). The matter and energy released in that explosion spread out, cooled, and formed into galaxies and stars. Ultimately some of the denser matter coalesced into planets. That gets us, in the case of earth, up to about 4 billion years ago.
Then there are the more faith-minded supporters of evolution. They may believe anything from the big bang to creation of the earth at that 4 billion year mark by a higher power. There are too many faiths - and too many people within those faiths - to qualify that one any further.
However, evolutionary theory makes no assumptions about how life began. It starts with life itself. Life from life, one organism from another. Not life from nothingness, that is a different theory. Please. Stop. Confusing. Them.
Stratcomm: What changes are being made in our own race?
What if the single male and single female had a whole lot of kids?
*You've mentioned one yourself (or tried to explain it): skin coloration. How would skin pigmentation properties - at the genetic level - adapt to different climates? Because we wanted them to? No. We evolved. You've almost said so yourself, all you left out was that key e word.
A good deal of them died at once, because of the flood.
There were animals that died before the flood. Mostlikely a good deal of time before the flood. That explains why their older.
Another :wtf:
I thought you said the earth was only 10,000 years old. When was the flood? And how could animals have died "a good deal of time before the flood" and still leave time for civilizations like Egypt to grow almost instantly out of creation? Logical contradiction.
Distributed evenly? Do tornados distribute debree evenly? Its nonsence.
The correct phrase would have been "randomly", and with a large enough sample size random distribution = even distribution. And yes, tornados do distribute their wreckage randomly within the distance those debris can travel when exiting the funnel.
Aldo: I liked your analogy of evolution, as keeping the correct letters for the next generation. Kudos.
Please talk about the ‘pole reversals’ some more. Id like you to explain it in more detail.
Magnetic pole reversal. See Geomagnetic Reversal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal) (Wikipedia). The reversal of Earth's magnetic field that occurs once every 250,000-2,000,000 years. It is hypothesized that the current weakening of the magnetic field is a prelude to a coming flip, though this is merely a theory.
“Also it ignores the theory of DNA and protein evolution.” Explain more please.
I'll need more context before I go digging back 10 pages to find what you're refering to. I'd imagine it's refering to the possibility that complex molecules can form out of simpler ones with the proper stimuli in a life-free environment. Protien synthesis leading to abiogenesis. At any rate, it's outside of the context of this thread, as we are debating evolution.
“Creationists believe that God created all animals and living things at Creation. Though they may have changed since God created the universe, they didn’t change by natural selection or mutation, but changed within fixed limits. Not nearly as extreme as the Evolutionists believe. So the animals we see today are mainly how God created them at Creation. -Charismatic
"Contradicted by fossil evidence. Also fails to explain why God would create something that needed to be changed - isnn't His creation supposed to be perfecT?-Aldo” As I said before, sin entered the earth, stuff changed and happened how it wasent susposed to. Ect ect ect..
Proper quotes. You've been good, but I'm still going to harp on this.
So evolution can happen now because it's needed to explain things that have happened in the last, oh, 6000 years that we can documentably show? Saying that sin is responsible is like saying that things changed because the flying spaghetti monster dripped a bit of omnipotent tomato sauce on them. It's taking the explainable out of the real of this world for no other reason than that it contradicts your beliefs.
“Here's another thing - how likely is it that an omnipotent and omniscent being just pops into existence, creates the earth, places stuff in the Earth contradicting the story he, she or it tells people, waits several thousand years before making itself known (and allowing the likes of polytheistic Greek, etc religions to toddle on), and makes such a botch job that they need to keep coming back and wiping out or modifying animals?” Once again id like to point out, the first link I gave you guys (not the one in the report). We are comeing at this topic with differences in opinion and biases. You don’t know how certing things make sence, and I do. But the way your portraying these certain thigns I don’t agree with. He was. He didn’t become into existance, as our logic suggests. He did not have parents ect. He just ‘was’. He said “tell them that I AM sent you” IIRC, in one case. We just cant understand this just yet. We are only human and cant comprehend this. He has no contradictions. He made himself known. Adam and Eve knew him. Noah knew him, the others refused to believe in him. Allowing other religons? -Free will. He only wiped us out once. He didn’t need to modify animals.
“Perhaps one of the most important issues - how does the flood explain fossil mineralization? Because, y'see, fossils aren't bones - they're replaced by minerals. We have archeological evidence from biblical and pre-biblical times that shows there's not enough time for this to happen.” Wheres your evidence.
Mummified bodies are not fossilized. Bones found at burial sites throughout the world dating from 20,000 years ago to the present are not fossilized. Here's a link that explains how rocks are dated, which is somewhat relevant: http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/prehistoric/what/fossilage.html. Unfortunately a relatively quick search yielded nothing about the speed of fossilization outside of refering to it as "a slow process" (and we're talking about rocks here, so the time scale is at least in part geologic). Admittedly the most recent actually fossilized remains found are about 10,000 years old, but others are far, far older. A bit of a moot point though because they can be radiologically dated with enough precision to put most fossils much older than that.
Kara: About ME, maby they were not talking about the timline of the earth. Maby they were.
Turny: “does anyone wanna explain, without using evolution, how there are many different races, all of which a directly descended from a single white (according to many religious paintings) couple?”
Paintings are paintings to make the picutre more socially and culturely pleasing. Their skincolor is unknown and extremely irrevelant. When they had enough decendents, they split up (After the tower of babel, and the newly developed different languages) and went different ways. They form then, in their respective area, over the thousands of years, their physical appearance changed to the respects of their surrondings ect. Skin color, and probably bone structures changed alittle, as iv stated before.
It does not make you God. In the bible it says something to the effect of, “God created us. Everything we create was in effect, created by him; as we are his creation.”
See *. We've said this time and time again, changes in response to surroundings are evolution. Period. Unless you can somehow show that they were divinly caused, then they evolved.
-
[q]I thought you said the earth was only 10,000 years old. When was the flood? And how could animals have died "a good deal of time before the flood" and still leave time for civilizations like Egypt to grow almost instantly out of creation? Logical contradiction.[/q]
It's important to note that Egypt existed before, during and after the flood. So did the Great Pyramid of Cheops. no explanation for that one forthcoming, I see.
[q]See *. We've said this time and time again, changes in response to surroundings are evolution. Period. Unless you can somehow show that they were divinly caused, then they evolved.[/q]
Not technically in response, though, because changes are random. Selected due to surroundings. Let's not confuse the poor chap, eh?
-
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. ]
What? ID opposes and denies Christianity?!
I dare you to prove that one!! :lol:
Charismatic,
Im still waiting, so just reminding you.
Charismatic,
Im still waiting for you to back up your assertion that Intelligent Design denies and opposes Christianity.
Ed
-
FFS. What I said about ID was not wrong. Prove your soruces. Mine said, well, what I said. There is an intellegent force, not god. They fight christianity and evolution at the same time. Some may be ‘predominately’ christian, but they sure as heck don’t claim they are. They say some being is doing it. Not god. They mean god but they don’t say its ‘god’.
Where on earth do you get these ideas from. ID is quite clearly Creationism, and all the ID proponants I know have all publically stated their religious beliefs and intentions.
Turny: “does anyone wanna explain, without using evolution, how there are many different races, all of which a directly descended from a single white (according to many religious paintings) couple?”
Paintings are paintings to make the picutre more socially and culturely pleasing. Their skincolor is unknown and extremely irrevelant. When they had enough decendents, they split up (After the tower of babel, and the newly developed different languages) and went different ways. They form then, in their respective area, over the thousands of years, their physical appearance changed to the respects of their surrondings ect. Skin color, and probably bone structures changed alittle, as iv stated before.
All in a few thousand years? Creationists are against Evolution, until they want to make us believe in hyper-evolution. :rolleyes:
-
[q]See *. We've said this time and time again, changes in response to surroundings are evolution. Period. Unless you can somehow show that they were divinly caused, then they evolved.[/q]
Not technically in response, though, because changes are random. Selected due to surroundings. Let's not confuse the poor chap, eh?
Thanks for catching that. It's entirely too late to be posting a coherent response on this side of the pond ;)
EDIT: Edward, 'edit' ;)
-
Aldo: No way it could simply dissapear afterwords?
Absolutely not. Matter can not just simply disappear. The water must have gone somewhere. You have completely failed to explain where this could possibly be. The oceans simply do not have enough space for all that water. And that's before you consider the fact that Earth had oceans before the great flood anyway so the water couldn't simply go into the oceans as they were already full. It couldn't have just evaporated either. That amount of water simply couldn't be supported by Earth's atmosphere.
-
Absolutely not. Matter can not just simply disappear. The water must have gone somewhere. You have completely failed to explain where this could possibly be. The oceans simply do not have enough space for all that water. And that's before you consider the fact that Earth had oceans before the great flood anyway so the water couldn't simply go into the oceans as they were already full. It couldn't have just evaporated either. That amount of water simply couldn't be supported by Earth's atmosphere.
And before you call it a miracle, why would God do such a thing and then leave aeons of contradictory evidence?
NB: it's worth remembering, water doesn't disappear but it does change state; gas, solid, liquid. Unfortunately, neither becomes invisible. Clouds in particular are a good example; your average cloud contains a cup of waters' worth. Ice is actually less dense than the liquid form, not to mention the unlikeliness of having some situation keeping that much water as ice without massive globally felt effects (it's worth noting that it's estimated that melting the antartic polar ice cap would raise the sea level by 61.1m. For comparison, the biblical flood would have to raise sea levels by over 4,800m).
Insofar as creationism/ID goes;
ID was and is mainly pushed and funded by the Discovery Institute. The DI was founded in 1990 as a think tank based upon the christian apologetics of CS Lewis (who converted to Christianity from aetheism). Stephen C. Meyer, one of the 3 founders of the DI and credited with introducing their ID based 'research' (i.e. attacks upon secular science) is a creationist. The directing board of the DI includes many religious conservatives, such as Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson, Jr (who called for homosexuals to be stoned, funds other fundamentalist groups and has a stated aim of "the total integration of biblical law into our lives,"). A former fellow, Philip Gold, who left in 2002 has criticised the DI for growing increasingly religious; "It evolved from a policy institute that had a religious focus to an organization whose primary mission is Christian conservatism". A memo from 1998 from the DI details a plan to "drive a wedge" into scientific materialism (i.e. factual reasearch) "thereby divorcing science from its purely observational and naturalistic methodology and reversing the deleterious effects of evolution on Western culture." (i.e. substituting religious morals for scientific exploration). Of 22 foundations giving grants to the DI, 2/3 explicitly state religious motivations (including the MacLellan Foundation, who commits itself to biblical infallibility).
Does that sound a group opposed to christianity? Sounds more like one trying to propagandize by destroying secular non-theistic thinking to me.
You can find similar examples elsewhere, although most tend to be more explicitly creationist; it's worth noting that Intelligent Design is left purposefully vague in order to preserve the coalition of fundamentalist groups behind it - defining things such as whether the world is flat would be dividing that group. It's a religious philosphy which can't actually decide which bits of the religion it wants to use, which is rather amusing.
-
Wild F.: Well, adam and eve disobeyed god, they allowed sin to enter the world. Sin, death, sickness, and disease. The deadly viruses and stuff like cancer is a reslut. The spiritual realm often reflects the earthly one, so to speak. Don’t take this out of context.
After so many pages of explanation and references on the topic of evolution, I thought you might have learned something insightful but I see you still haven't learned the basic bit of what's a fact and what's not. It's fine that you want to show your beliefs, but at least show some solid evident of your previous claims. Without any prove what so ever so far, you made up more statements and tried to build them on top of a pile of nonsense, that just doesn't work. I am actually amused by your 'explanation' above about existance of bacteria and viruses :) Well, I am just going to leave it easy on you since aldo, kj and others have already shown good enough points to correct your stories.
So who is this sin guy (or thing)? Oh if you have not yet known, viruses are not real living organisms.
-
I havea feeling that everything that points out the imposability of something will be a miricle. noah can't build a ship 450 feet long and fit all animals in it, well it happend so IT'S A MIRICALE.water can't just spontainiusly come into or go out of exsistance, why not God is majical he can defy laws of logic nature and common sence at will,IT'S A MIRICALE! the diameter of a circle that has a circomference of 30 is 10, IT'S A BLOODY MIRICALE!!!
it's a very nice little concept, you don't have to suport your assertions because they are all conveniently self explanitory, they both defy all laws of physics, cause the formation of misleading evedence, and best of all this all adds up to God being stronger because of it and you can never be proven wrong because even if we found a VHS tape that recorded all history, God simply made it happen and made it so that VHS tape didn't pick it up, all evedence must conform to the prexsisting ideals, this is why it is invalid thinking, you can't just assume some bizar thing then use the bizarity of that thing to explain the lack of supporting evedence for it.
-
Oh if you have not yet known, viruses are not real living organisms.
I thought the jury was still out on that one. Or am I behind?
-
All hail Bobboau, creator of the universe!
Those who don't believe are heretics!
-
Oh if you have not yet known, viruses are not real living organisms.
I thought the jury was still out on that one. Or am I behind?
I think you'd have to define 'living organism' first, I think. The inability of virii to conventionally reproduce, the lack of decay, movement or metabolism (really that bit is an editorial aside) AFAIK means the (significant) majority of virologists consider them non-living particles.
-
look up the mimivirus, interesting stuff, leads some to think that (some) viri are the remnants of RNA world, that they have lost the ability to reproduce on there own simply due to there extreem parasitism.
(mimivirus is the largest known virus, it has more genes than some bacteria, includeing genes for things like genetic error corection that you should only rationaly find in an ogranism capable of self replication, it's also capable of synthisising it's own proteins.)
-
Just did. Tres interesting.
-
Thanks for the heads up Bob. Bet you that mimivirus gets a fair few mentions next time we're debating abiogenesis :)
-
I was not able to check and keep up on the topic, from after i posted my report, to page 12. 6 pages of hellish-longly pages like this one. Add on another 3-4 from last night till tonight. I have alot to read and you all dont realize how much time i have spent trying to keep up reading from page 6- here. Be more conciterite. And FFS stop pressing me. Give me time to keep up before you demand quick answers now to your recent questions. I am trying my best. I dont have infinite time. I have to work soon and im still reading this ****. Give me some credit.
I guess I will make just a few responses, just to get into the discussion a little. My replies are given in blue.
Man was made by God to live forever and never die. But sin came and our lifes keep getting shorter. Sin affects our gentics over the generations and causes us to live less. It has greater and greater toll on our lifes. --> So why have life spans been growing longer for the past several thousand years, and explosively so during the past few hundred? Less sin?:rolleyes:
Also, do you have any _empirical_ evidence to support this theory? Have sinners been found to get more genetic mutations?
I think the last limit God set for man was ~ 120 years. We are just getting better health conditions and pills and **** to live around 100. Before we didnt have those and only lived to 55-60.
Please explain the correct meaning of ‘Natural Selection’, then. --> "Natural Selection" is where a species undergoes changes due to random mutations causing certain members of a population to have increased odds of surviving certain environmental pressures. The individuals that do not get these mutations are less likely to survive, so over time, the "beneficial" mutation will become more common, and thus the species changes. Hence the name "natural selection", meaning that "natural" environmental pressures "select" the individuals of a population that are most capable of surviving and reproducing. (This is a very simple and watered-down explanation, but I'm sure someone else can describe it in more detail.)
Thanks for explaining.
Wasent Radiocarbon dateing said to have been a flawd way of dateing things? --> Read what was posted on the previous page about carbon dating.
Shade: God created the universe basicaly how it is. He created earth in its middle stages already. He made it as if it was there for that long- made the light already be reaching earth. This is a belief based on reasoning, not exactly facts.
How do Evolutionitsts believe the universe began? --> Evolution doesn't discuss how the universe came to be, or has come to be the way it is now. That discussion lies in astrophysics. Therefore your question is (and I'm sorry for saying this), meaningless. Some evolutionists beleive that God created the universe. Others (like myself) go by the Big Bang Theory (though that theory can't explain what happened before the Big Bang). But heck, a few even go by the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory.:p
Evolutionists beleive (some do) that God created the universe? That seems like irony right there.
There were animals that died before the flood. Mostlikely a good deal of time before the flood. That explains why their older. --> So why are there fossils dated back to before you believe the Earth was created? If you are going to respond to this by saying that there is a flaw in the dating techniques, then you must say what that flaw is, and the evidence to support it. Otherwise, you're statement is not a valid arguement, and instead only conjecture.
As i said, il look it up when i have the chance. Sorry but i do not have time to check in the wiki yet.
Their skincolor is unknown and extremely irrevelant. When they had enough decendents, they split up (After the tower of babel, and the newly developed different languages) and went different ways. They form then, in their respective area, over the thousands of years, their physical appearance changed to the respects of their surrondings ect. Skin color, and probably bone structures changed alittle, as iv stated before. --> Ahem. THAT... IS... EVOLUTION.
And here's why: You're saying that their physical appearance changed due to the enviroment. For example, the population that recieves greater exposure to sunlight gets darker skin over time. This would be due to individuals in the population who have more skin pigment to have higher survival rates in those climates. This is precisely what evolution is, so, if I understand your above statment correctly, you have just admitted that evolution is plausible, which is in direct contradiction to your entire arguement. If I have made a misunderstanding about what you meant there, then by all means tell us how what you stated is different from evolution.
Well, you missed what i said, apparently. I said on a smaller scale. Its 'changing' not really 'evolving\evolution'.
Ok, that's all. It's 3:00 AM here and I reeeaaally require sleep.
ugh, so much...
one thing that's irking me a bit, intelegent design, it is on your side. it says an intelegent designer made the universe, it doesn't come out and say it is God but it's implied, you need to understand ID is creationists trying to use what they see as a loophole in the law to get as much creationism into schools as posable, ID does not contradict creationism, it is simply a simplified version of it, crafted to get around laws saying to can't teach religion as science.
Well i gues your right. Never really saw it taht way before.
also you say that ages of people are getting shorter and shorter, but humans can live to be 100 years easaly today, 100 years ago you were consitered lucky to reach 60, is the world of today a less sinful place? or is that a bunch of BS that someone told you and you never bothered to look up?
See my reply to the blue.
if fossilisation only took a few thousand years, and there have been humans alive all that time then why are all the remains we have found not fossilised? why can we dig up bones from graves in cities mentioned early in the bible (so we know these bodies have been in the ground for the better part of the creationist view of the age of th earth) and they don't show the slightest hint of fossilisation, nor do any animals found in these places? if it didn't take millions of years then logicaly we should be able to dig up an egyptian grave and find fossilised bone, why don't we?
I have no reply other then: As you said youself, you need certian conditions to be perfect before thigns can fossilize. Peoples bones in graves is not the correct condition.
and it sounds like your starting to move to the "God made the earth with all sorts of fake evedence built into it" (like light from distant stars and isotope ratios) idea, if your going to go down such an intelectualy dishonest rout your beleifes must truely have no foundation in reality and you know it. it's like saying God framed us. realy, this is some hard number math stuff here, you must be willing to consiter the posability that the Bible is not a totaly relyable directory of physical knowlage, it says PI=3 (1 kings, chaper 7, vs 23, it says a circular shape that is 10 cubits wide had a circomference of 30), it IS wrong about certan facts, so you can't just blindly accept what it says, and you certanly can't go down the road of 'God made the fossils... to trik you or something'.
Im not saying that.
The exact measurements of the Arc may be not completely correct due to imperfect transilation of measurements.
Shade: God created the universe basicaly how it is. He created earth in its middle stages already. He made it as if it was there for that long- made the light already be reaching earth. This is a belief based on reasoning, not exactly facts.
Where exactly in the bible does it say that?
I said its based on reasoning, not from a direct quote in the bible.
EDIT: Also, please have some basic courtsey and quote your quotes or at least color your responses differently from the quotations.
Sorry.
Kindly quote what you are responding to next time. I've done you the service of doing this, even going so far as to make sure that every time I've quoted you I've kept your colour. I expect similar levels of consideration from you. I've posted a lot on this topic and I expect you to at least quote what you are replying to so that I don't have to re-read the entire page and then try to figure out what the hell you're replying to.
Sorry, il try to.
He took every species that was avalible that day and age. Maby not stuff like plankton or fish tho. The simpler versions. Like before dogs interbreeded to make the vast majority of types of dogs there are today.
So you admit that selected breeding can result in the accumulation of large changes then? You admit that in the 4000 years since your supposed flood humans have been able to breed everything from the great dane to the chihuahua? Well at least that's an improvement on the last person I argued with who claimed that chihuahuas weren't selectively bred and had been around since biblical times :rolleyes:
Thanks for the compliment.
The ‘clean’ animals were taken 7 male and 7 female of each species. The ‘unclean’ were by 3’s. IIRC. Someone mentioned that the bible contradicted itself there. I don’t know what they are talking about, as it is clear of the numbers of each.
Oh for ****'s sake do I now have to correct you about your own religion too? :lol:
Did i not say i didnt have my bible around to be correct on quote scripture?
6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
which is somewhat contradicted by
7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Now I'm sure that there is some stock christian argument to explain that discrepancy, spare me it. I don't particularly care. I mearly quoted it seeing as how you were wondering what the contradiction was. What's important is the the belief that the animals went onto the ark two by two is such a well known part of the whole Noah myth that I'm forced to conclude that you can't know much about the bible either.
Well thi sis interesting. Il find out about it and get back to you.
As for finding every species; he had plenty of time, and its very likely God caused the animals to come to him, or the like, so he could complete his task of captureing every species.
I think you miss the point. You simply could not fit two every single creature onto the Ark. Remember that we know exactly how big the Ark is. It's 450 feet long. You're expecting this to carry not only all the animals but also food to feed them for at least 7 months! It simply wouldn't all fit.
See above (one of the last replys of mine before your reply)
The Canopy theory explains this. The canopy served as a shiled, and let only a few of the UV and Gamma rays of the sun, to hit the earth. Light was able to come to the earth, but the bad rays were stopped. This caused people to live near 1000 years. Plants were hudge. Trees were giant also.
So if we were to move into lead lined bunkers underground we'd live for 1,000 years then? :lol: Sorry but that is ludicrous
There is more that goes into it then simply less radiation. There is a way less amount of nutrients in plants and the soil (the earth basicaly) nowadays, then there was back then. The canopy caused the rapid and large growth of animals humans and plants. The great amounts of nutrients is the factor that helped with prolonging life and maintianing ones body. Took longer to break the body down (age) ect.
Kara: I must prove a designer is needed before I can claim that? What? Must the pot prove it needs a clay(pot)maker before it can say it was made\designed? Your argument is fallacious.
No it isn't. I pointed to a snowflake as an example of a complex design that occurs due to natural processes and you completely ignored me and simply restated your original answer with barely any changes. If you look at a snowflake under a microscope it looks like it was designed as it has a beautiful pattern to it. Now someone without knowledge of how a crystal forms would look at that snowflake and say "That must have been designed. There is no way something that complex could have happened on its own."
Anyone who said that would be wrong. We understand how and why ice crystals form in patterns like that due to the interactions between the water molecules that make it up.
It is the same with other forms of complexity. You cannot simply state "There must be a designer" while there is an alternative scientific theory that explains the same facts without using one. You may not believe that complexity like this could exist without a designer but that doesn't make you right. I already explained elsewhere using the example of how the world being round that just because something seems unbelieveable doesn't mean it is impossible.
Before you can say that there must be a designer you need to prove it.
I have no responce to this. (About the snowflake thing.)
How does a simple cell one day decide, ‘im going to get more complex’? Take this for example. The beginning cells, when a baby is created, have all the info for ‘what every other cell I make will do’. Each cell has its own job, function, wether to make an ear or eye etc. They do what their programmed to do. The origional cell(s) have all the ‘blueprints’, and it does not simply change them.
There's an attempt at a question here which I am not grasping. Are you asking why single celled organisms evolved into multi-cellular ones or asking some kind of question about development or something else? If you're going to ask me a question you need to state it more clearly. You ramble on about inconsequencial matters so much that it's hard to pick the signal out from the noise.
Did you get what i said about the few beginning cells, when creating a baby? They have the 'blueprints' of what each cell they duplicate from that point- what they will do. They all have functions. Cant change them. So, how can they decide to become more complex or change from their planned purpose?
Please explain the correct meaning of ‘Natural Selection’, then.
Natural Selection means that animals whose genes express benificial adaptations will tend to have more offspring who will also possess those genes. As a result those genes will become more widespread within the population.
Natural Selection does not require catastrophies to work as you claimed.
Wasent Radiocarbon dateing said to have been a flawd way of dateing things?
Radiocarbon dating is not flawed. Its accuracy is limited to around 50,000 years or so but that is not a flaw any more than the fact a car can't fly is a flaw. When used for the task it is good for radiocarbon dating is pretty accurate.
FFS. What I said about ID was not wrong. Prove your soruces. Mine said, well, what I said. There is an intellegent force, not god. They fight christianity and evolution at the same time. Some may be ‘predominately’ christian, but they sure as heck don’t claim they are. They say some being is doing it. Not god. They mean god but they don’t say its ‘god’.
You have fundementally misunderstood what ID is and have simply assumed that it is a belief that disagrees with evolution and creationism. This is wrong.
The Supreme Court of America has ruled that the teaching of creationism in schools contravenes the constitution. Namely the seperation of church and state (I'm not getting into an argument as to whether this is fair. I'm simply stating it as a fact so save your breath). Some people (mainly christians) disliked this. They wanted to be able to teach creationism in schools but now they couldn't do so. Instead they took several of the arrguments you've tried to use, scribbled out the word God in them and presented them again calling it Intelligent Design and then petitioned to get this taught in schools.
ID is basically creationism like yours but with no mention of God. God is not mentioned not because they don't believe in him but because the second they actually mention God the supreme court will come down on them like a ton of bricks.
So your claim that IDers denounce christianity is completely incorrect. IDers are very strongly christian. They simply don't talk about God when arguing about ID because they know it would instantly torpedo their entire argument.
How do Evolutionitsts believe the universe began?
In a variety of ways. Roman Catholics believe that God created it. As do many Christians who agree with it. Other people think that the Big Bang was the start. Others favoured other theories or beliefs. You are still failing to see that how the universe started is completely irrelevant to this thread.
Just trying to understnad the different aspects of Evolution etc, as you repeditely claim i misunderstand.
About ME, maby they were not talking about the timline of the earth. Maby they were.
What? :confused: How does anything to to with Mitochondiral Eve have anything to do with the timeline of the Earth? The two are not connected in any way apart from the fact that ME has been dated to 200,000 years ago. Which is long before you claim the Earth was created.
This is all i have time for. Il have time Monday, probably, and\or Tuesday. Get back to you guys then.
And out of common curitcsy, try to cut the 'lets ahve 5 people reply to every single point Char makes at the same time, with really long lenghy replys.' Its hard for me to keep up when 20 people are doing the same thing in 1 single page.
Thank you.
-
Don't mean to derail the thread, but that signature is awesome. :D
-
[q]I think the last limit God set for man was ~ 120 years. We are just getting better health conditions and pills and **** to live around 100. Before we didnt have those and only lived to 55-60.[/q]
The worlds oldest (verified) person was 122 years old; Jeanne Calmert who died in 1997. There have of course been claims of older people (such as 128 in the Phillipines), but the lack of documentation makes it harder to verify.
[q]
Evolutionists beleive (some do) that God created the universe? That seems like irony right there.[/q]
Um, no, not irony. Irony would imply 'a contrast or an incongruity between what is stated and what is really meant', and evolution doesn't state anything about the creation of the universe (or creation of life for that matter).
There is no connection between how the universe was created and the theory of evolution. Both are disparate theories and actually in different fields; evolution is biology and (for example the big bang theory) the creation of the universe is more related to physics. i.e. evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.
It's worth noting. Evolution doesn't deny or even address the existence of (a) God; it just gives the best explanation fitting the observable world and evidence.
[q]Well, you missed what i said, apparently. I said on a smaller scale. Its 'changing' not really 'evolving\evolution'.[/q]
Evolution is change. you've made the mistake of confusing the cumulative action of evolution to being evolution itself; evolution is a process of gradual, selected very small steps that build up into larger morphological-type changes, speciation, etc. This is one of the reasons transitional evidence is so important.
EDIT; to be precise, evolution involves a process of continuous incremental changes. Selected by sexual or fitness advantage, etc.
[q]I have no reply other then: As you said youself, you need certian conditions to be perfect before thigns can fossilize. Peoples bones in graves is not the correct condition.[/q]
What makes you think the conditions for fossilization are not present? We have egyptian commoners from the time of Moses who were found in the correct conditions; we can measure the known date of their burial (approx date), correlate it with carbon dating (it's within the realms of that method to do so) and known history, and compare the progress of mineralization (remember how fossils are made?) in those remains.
I think Bob made a slight omission or mistake in the use of fossilization, because it might not be clear here; a fossil is a bone/hard tissue (or sometimes soft tissue - rapid burial is required for these) that has had its molecules completely replaced by minerals and thus become stone. This is by no means an instantaneous process, and as said above we can check the rate of progress in relatively 'modern' remains (modern in geological terms).
[q]Im not saying that.
The exact measurements of the Arc may be not completely correct due to imperfect transilation of measurements.[/q]
Um, even to have the minimal size of ark for the lowest possible estimate of animals, bearing in mind you'd need a survivable number of animals (which would contradict both by pairs or even in 7s, because you need about 20+ for any hope of survival of a species and predators need a high prey ratio for both to survive), you'd still be looking at a truly vast ship, probably larger than anything we can build today. You'd also need for even the specified size to have different building methods from that described in the bible (namely steel/iron reinforcements). But I think I've covered this anyways in the earlier pages.
[q]
There is more that goes into it then simply less radiation. There is a way less amount of nutrients in plants and the soil (the earth basicaly) nowadays, then there was back then. The canopy caused the rapid and large growth of animals humans and plants. The great amounts of nutrients is the factor that helped with prolonging life and maintianing ones body. Took longer to break the body down (age) ect.[/q]
Do you have any supporting evidence or a source for that? I've never heard anything like that suggested anywhere.
[q]Did you get what i said about the few beginning cells, when creating a baby? They have the 'blueprints' of what each cell they duplicate from that point- what they will do. They all have functions. Cant change them. So, how can they decide to become more complex or change from their planned purpose?[/q]
They don't 'decide'. They mutate. You'll have, on average, about 7 mutations within your genetic code. Most will be neutral, so they don't have any observable effect and don't propagate across the species. Sometimes, you will have some mutation that makes you live longer, more sexually attractive, etc. (this is more applicable to animals and small populations due to the effects of human society making it both quite easy to survive and people likely to be monogamous) You live longer or get more attractive, and thus can produce more children. They gain your advantage through genetic inheritance of the advantageous mutation, and live longer and have more kids, and over time that mutation spreads to the majority of the species. These mutations accumulate, until we get a new distinct species. At no point is there a 'decision' made.
Essentially, a mutation changes that blueprint. There is no conscious 'act' to mutate in a certain way; the mutation is chance. The selection, of course, isn't; it's based on an environmental or reproductive advantage. It's a bit like brainstorming ideas for a project, and reusing those that work for other projects.
EDIT; to be more specific.
Mutations generally happen as a result of copying DNA. The general rate is 10^-10 to 10^-12 per base pair (a base pair is either a Thymine-Adenine or Guanine-Cytosine pair - the TA / GC letters you'll see in DNA samples; T only maps to A and G to C, which is why DNA can so efficiently replicate by splitting). Mutations include insertion of base-pair strands, the changing of one of these 'letters' (i.e. T becomes A and we end up with AT instead of TA), or the deletion of strands.
These mutations can, for example, change the coding for a created protein. This in turn has a biochemical effect upon the formation of the body, neutral (i.e. we can't detect it unless doing a genetic level examination), negative or positive.
You'll note there's no control mechanism to weed out negative but recessive mutations, such as a propensity for cancer or similar. Essentially, a recessive mutation is one where the positive/normal characteristic is dominant over it; i.e. when you have 2 parents and one contributes the negative and the other the 'normal' chromosome, the normal will be asserted in the child. It takes 2 recessive parental contributions to actually cause the characteristic to crop up. This kind of emphasises that we have no control over this; it's really just down to chemistry, and we can't pick and choose what genes we get other than by excercising mate choice (which would lead us onto sexual selection and its implications on things like the peacocks tail or human mind, but that's something for later).
Also, it's worth noting that most positive mutations are generally lost due to things like dominance/recession; it's been estimated a mutation conferring a 1% increase in fitness is 2% likely to 'fix'; although recurring mutations obviously have an increased frequency. Also, neutral mutations can 'fix' too. What is key to remember here, is that natural selection means that organisms with a negative mutation as part of their DNA (i.e. affecting the organisms makeup) are more likely to die, and those with a positive mutation are more likely to live; so the relative constants of the chemical DNA action is mediated by the effects upon survival and that organism having the opportunity to reproduce.
(sorry, that might be a bit muddled sounding. Basically, the chemical likelihood of any mutation being propagated is the same, but the likelihood of that organism surviving and reproducing affects a likelihood effect upon that chemical likelihood).
[q]Just trying to understnad the different aspects of Evolution etc, as you repeditely claim i misunderstand.[/q]
To re-emphasise; the creation of the universe is not an aspect of evolution. It is an aspect of science, but not the specific biological theory of evolution.
The main reason, I think, that the creation of the universe has cropped in this thread as a topic is because it relates to the follies of reading the bible as a literal rather than allegorical or mythological history.
-
[q]Well, you missed what i said, apparently. I said on a smaller scale. Its 'changing' not really 'evolving\evolution'.[/q]
Well, you missed what we have been saying, apparently. That sort of 'changing' _IS_ an example of evolution. the only thing is the theory doesn't just explain that it happens, but how and why.
namely peole with darker skin in more equatorial environments will on average have more kids than fairer skined people, because darker skin is more adapted to that environment, these kids will on average have more darker skined genes than the population in general and also have the advantage there parent had, and thus have more kids themselves, eventualy the trait exsists in the entier population. this is the process of evolution in action.
-
Thinking about it.... a skin colour and facial structure change is a pretty bloody big morphological change.
NB: Bob, one of the specific theories relating to skin colour is vitamin D absorption. Vitamin D is toxic in large doses, but vital for the body, and darker skins are good for blocking excess vitamin D in tropical climates ala Africa, whereas lighter skins increase the rate of absorption for colder i.e. european climates. Mentioned this earlier, but it seems to have been ingored.
-
I'm aware of that theory, doesn't change what I was saying.
-
I'm aware of that theory, doesn't change what I was saying.
Oh, of course not. I was just offering it as some backup reasoning to indicate the (a) specific adaptation we're talking about.
-
I have no responce to this. (About the snowflake thing.)
As long as it means you'll stop saying that a designer MUST be present to explain complexity that's fine.
Did you get what i said about the few beginning cells, when creating a baby? They have the 'blueprints' of what each cell they duplicate from that point- what they will do. They all have functions. Cant change them. So, how can they decide to become more complex or change from their planned purpose?
First lets get this straight cause it's actually a pretty important distinction. DNA is not a blueprint. DNA is more like a recipe. Where as with a blue print you need to make very large changes to have a difference with a recipe you can have a huge effect with only a tiny one. If I gave you a recipe for trifle and you mistook the word jello for jelly you'd end up with something pretty different as an end product even though you've only made a 1 letter substitution.
The effect of a mutation can be similarly far reaching (it isn't always but the point is that it has the potential to be). Let me give you an example of how a single celled organism can mutate to become a multi-celled one. This change has actually been observed under laboratory conditions mind you. (I'm simplfying the story but and example of how it actually did happen can be found here (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul00.html)).
Suppose you take a form of single celled life form an alga. This cell reproduces by division. A second cell is formed from the first within the cell membrane and then it breaks free and wanders off on its own. Now suppose you have a small mutation that makes it so that the new cell doesn't break out of the membrane. A simple change in the phospholipid structure could do that. (note I'm not saying that is what happened. It's just an example). You'll find that after cell division you'd end up with two cells sharing the same membrane. In essence a multi-cellular life form.
The story doesn't end there though. This mutation is rare and generally not passed on. The alga hasn't evolved yet. It's simply displayed an interesting mutation.
You now introduce a predator to the alga. This is another single celled organism that envelops and eats algae. The predator quite happily munches its way through the population until it comes the the mutant. Then it has a problem. The mutant is too big to be enveloped. It can't eat it. So it swims off in favour of easier prey. What we now have is a selection pressure. Whereas before the mutation no longer had any particular value it's suddenly give the alga 100% resistance to a predator that kills its non-mutated kin. It is now that we see natural selection go into action. When the mutant has offspring they too will be immune to the effect of the predator. So you have a situation where the single celled organisms are being eaten up but the dual celled ones aren't. It shouldn't be too hard to see that as the single celled become less numerous they won't be having as many descendants. The dual celled variant however will continue spitting out kids as if nothing had ever happened. Eventually all the single celled organisms will be eaten and only the multicellular version exists. And that's evolution. We've seen a single celled life form evolve into a multicellular one.
Remember this isn't just an example. This has been shown to happen under laboratory conditions!
-
Am I the only one who has seen this thread go literally in a complete circle from about page 13-14? I mean, i've kept up with this topic - interesting reading and all - and Charis made a long list of assertions about 10 pages ago, after which Kara, Aldo & the rest of you lads responded with clear & concise explanations/corrections. And yet, around page 13-14, Charis made the exact same assertions as if he didn't even bother to read the explanations/corrections laid out so carefully for him. Forgive me if this might be the wrong conclusion to come to, but doesn't that imply that Charis is either not reading half the responses - thereby invalidating half the entire arguement - or simply being so close-minded as to render any attempt at correction or persuasion utterly futile?
Again, forgive me for coming to such a bleak conclusion, but the past 5 pages have effectively been a complete repeat of the 5 or so before that [excluding the spam], so either we should just give up on Charis [and the ever-so-elusive ZmaN], or we should 'pause' the discussion for a few days to give the poor blighter a respite to catch up on reading the rest of the thread, thereby giving him the opertunity to compose a much more coherent arguement that doesn't repeat the same old crap again and again and again. Seriously, i'm going to start beating my head on my Computer desk if he keeps on with his misinterpretations of practically every field of evolution [& beyond], like his baffling belief that the Big Bang theory and Abiogenesis somehow enters into the general Theory of Evolution!
On another note, i'm thinking he feels as if Evolution [Charis, could you please stop referring to proponents of Evolution as 'evolutionists' as if it were some religion] is in some way an attack on his God, which would explain his fervor at defending Creationism...
Evolution is not an attack on Faith or God. It is a theory based on collected observations, and in no way invalidates or attempts to disprove the existance of a Divine Being such as your God.
-
Blueprint - something intended as a guide for making something else
Recipe - directions for making something
Both are guides and nothing more.............
-
Hopefully one day we evolve into better beings. ;)
I get derided as a whacko nutjob racist fascist in some places for saying such things and putting the proper name to it: eugenics.
I would like to thank certain asshats in history who have abused and misapplied that concept.
-
of course all the Human Race needs now is a little selection pressure
i'd be happy if it was intelligence based
-
Hopefully one day we evolve into better beings. ;)
I get derided as a whacko nutjob racist fascist in some places for saying such things and putting the proper name to it: eugenics.
I would like to thank certain asshats in history who have abused and misapplied that concept.
I guess that depends quite a bit whether you latch onto the older usage in Greece by the likes of Plato, or Francis Galtons more recent (1800s) adoption of the idea which suggested financial incentives for marriage between upper class families (to fair, Galton opposed the idea of state compulsion).
To be honest, though, we already practice eugenics in the sense of mate choice, so it's hard to see what the term (as it's usually applied) adds beyond the concept of some societal (re?) enforcement of class divisions.
-
it would be some (government) organised program to make better people.
I don't like the idea of eugenics, I prefer direct manipulation of the genome, rather than breeding programs.
-
Blueprint - something intended as a guide for making something else
Recipe - directions for making something
Both are guides and nothing more.............
It bugs me when people call DNA a blueprint because that implies a 1 to 1 mapping between sections of DNA and sections of the body. This mistake is the basis of a large amount of crappy sci-fi that assumes that if you re-write the DNA you can re-write the rest of the body.
Far better to call it a recipe and end the misconception. Especially as the term blueprint invoked the idea of an architect to create it.
-
This mistake is the basis of a large amount of crappy sci-fi that assumes that if you re-write the DNA you can re-write the rest of the body.
You know what I see wrong about scifi like Star Trek is that they have not only have 2 different species successfully procreating, but species from 2 different planets!
-
Blueprint - something intended as a guide for making something else
Recipe - directions for making something
Both are guides and nothing more.............
It bugs me when people call DNA a blueprint because that implies a 1 to 1 mapping between sections of DNA and sections of the body. This mistake is the basis of a large amount of crappy sci-fi that assumes that if you re-write the DNA you can re-write the rest of the body.
Far better to call it a recipe and end the misconception. Especially as the term blueprint invoked the idea of an architect to create it.
Calling it a recipe does not end the misconception. The english language itself causes the misconception. IMO there is no difference between what the word recipe or blueprint means. It is only what you perceive the word as. Example. "I have a recipe for success", "I have a blueprint for success", or "I have a guide for success". All three phrases mean the exact same thing to me, but only one word has been changed in each. But lets move back to your other example and pretend every person on earth perceives the word recipe as when one small change is made it has huge impact. If someone was to say mistake meter for foot within a blueprint for something, wouldnt that also have a huge impact?
I'm not saying you are wrong in the point you were making. I am just pointing out how the english language is what will cause the misconception. :p
-
Am I the only one who has seen this thread go literally in a complete circle from about page 13-14? I mean, i've kept up with this topic - interesting reading and all - and Charis made a long list of assertions about 10 pages ago, after which Kara, Aldo & the rest of you lads responded with clear & concise explanations/corrections. And yet, around page 13-14, Charis made the exact same assertions as if he didn't even bother to read the explanations/corrections laid out so carefully for him. Forgive me if this might be the wrong conclusion to come to, but doesn't that imply that Charis is either not reading half the responses - thereby invalidating half the entire arguement - or simply being so close-minded as to render any attempt at correction or persuasion utterly futile?
Again, forgive me for coming to such a bleak conclusion, but the past 5 pages have effectively been a complete repeat of the 5 or so before that [excluding the spam], so either we should just give up on Charis [and the ever-so-elusive ZmaN], or we should 'pause' the discussion for a few days to give the poor blighter a respite to catch up on reading the rest of the thread, thereby giving him the opertunity to compose a much more coherent arguement that doesn't repeat the same old crap again and again and again. Seriously, i'm going to start beating my head on my Computer desk if he keeps on with his misinterpretations of practically every field of evolution [& beyond], like his baffling belief that the Big Bang theory and Abiogenesis somehow enters into the general Theory of Evolution!
On another note, i'm thinking he feels as if Evolution [Charis, could you please stop referring to proponents of Evolution as 'evolutionists' as if it were some religion] is in some way an attack on his God, which would explain his fervor at defending Creationism...
Evolution is not an attack on Faith or God. It is a theory based on collected observations, and in no way invalidates or attempts to disprove the existance of a Divine Being such as your God.
Ok, for one i have been keeping up as best i can (see my last reply). A gap from page 7 to, what was it, 12(?) i havent read yet. Im workin on it. The reason i have been regurgetating answers is because, its all i can do for my defence agiesnst some topic. Then everyone yells at me about it and picks it (and me) apart. Then i learn alittle more. Im getting there. You guys have actually made me think about some of these things, which i havent thought about before.
I have readed this page. I actually think i understand Mutation and Natural Selection in its generalities now, thanks to Aldo and Kara.
Im workin on reading page 7 now. I hope this thread dont spurt another 3-4 pages sence i post this. Lol. (Yet)
-
[q]The reason i have been regurgetating answers is because, its all i can do for my defence agiesnst some topic[/q]
The reason for annoyance is because we quite often have already addressed it and, whilst i understand it's rather a large thread to pick through, it's rather frustrating to have to restate the same things several times.
-
Am I the only one who has seen this thread go literally in a complete circle from about page 13-14? I mean, i've kept up with this topic - interesting reading and all - and Charis made a long list of assertions about 10 pages ago, after which Kara, Aldo & the rest of you lads responded with clear & concise explanations/corrections. And yet, around page 13-14, Charis made the exact same assertions as if he didn't even bother to read the explanations/corrections laid out so carefully for him. Forgive me if this might be the wrong conclusion to come to, but doesn't that imply that Charis is either not reading half the responses - thereby invalidating half the entire arguement - or simply being so close-minded as to render any attempt at correction or persuasion utterly futile?
Again, forgive me for coming to such a bleak conclusion, but the past 5 pages have effectively been a complete repeat of the 5 or so before that [excluding the spam], so either we should just give up on Charis [and the ever-so-elusive ZmaN], or we should 'pause' the discussion for a few days to give the poor blighter a respite to catch up on reading the rest of the thread, thereby giving him the opertunity to compose a much more coherent arguement that doesn't repeat the same old crap again and again and again. Seriously, i'm going to start beating my head on my Computer desk if he keeps on with his misinterpretations of practically every field of evolution [& beyond], like his baffling belief that the Big Bang theory and Abiogenesis somehow enters into the general Theory of Evolution!
It would really be better for all concerned if responses were formed from the end of the thread rather than trying to sequentially parse things. If he keeps doing it the way he has been, Charismatic is propogating an exponential growth in the number or replies he has to face. Were he to start at the end, he could at least make tractible progress towards addressing the things most on peoples' minds.
-
Try reading the entire thread first then go back and answer things. It is better that you understand as much as possible before answering.
IMO there is no difference between what the word recipe or blueprint means.
Actually there is quite a large difference between the two. If I had the blueprints of your house I could point to a random window and say "Inside that room, 3 metres from the door you'll find a socket." If however I have your recipe for raisin cake I can't say "5cm in and 10cm down you'll find a raisin."
That's what I mean by the lack of a 1 to 1 mapping. You can make blueprints from a house or a house from the blueprints but you can only follow a recipe in one direction.
I'm not saying you are wrong in the point you were making. I am just pointing out how the english language is what will cause the misconception. :p
It will help though once you have listened to the reason why you should change :)
-
Ok i read page 7+8. Il start 9 later tonight. Im gona be buzy for the rest of the day untill later at night, so see ya all then. This is all i have time for now.
NO i have not had time to visit the links or watch the shows linked to me yet. Firstly i have to read everything. Then il visit links. SOrry for the inconvinence.[ Well, it sure does seem like it's a fight that needs to be fought by now. At first I was just hoping it would die down once people realized the inherent sillyness of the whole thing, but here we are still. If this thing sticks, then what next? Renaming all the days since they've got 'heathen' names? Surely any good christian can't be caught uttering names based on the nordic gods.
Im big on greek myths. I know some of the stories, i have a few books. Their cool and fun to read, about Zuse (Sp? lol i cant beleive i cant spell that name) and Herculies (my spellin is ****) etc.
Of course, over a long time frame, evolution (ironically...) will sort it all out. The people who deny science will be mostly stuck with what they have, and those who embrace it will move on. Give it a couple of millenia and the first group will be effectively in the stone age compared to the second ;)
The problem is that the inherent silliness of it all is based on what sound like common sense, even sound arguements - that is, until you actually learn the most basic bit about the subject. Because they've succeded in both attacking scientific teaching and mischaracterising evolution & life (the use of 'obvious design' and 'chance' to describe biology here being a clear example of that misinformation in action), they've worked to soften the ground for creationism. It's a strategem that aims to posit the 'debate' (when on a factual, educated perspective there simply is no debate) by systematically lying about the alternative, in order to strengthen a shoddy position. We've already seen both Zman and Charismatic give reasons that are based on badly-done and faulty research (performed purely to try and claw some results to support creationism), and which are disproven both by weight of scientific evidence and common sense (the Great Flood managing to sort pollen and plant specimens in disparate climatological groups?), but because someone has crammed it into them, they're unwilling to actually look at the evidence with a rational, scientific eye.
Ok, for once, that is totally incorrect. God did not command Noah to take the plants or pollin (species etc). Only his family and the animals. He sure as anything, did not go and take all the plants into the arc (except for food), and did not seperate them into disparate climatological groups. Where do you get That idea from?
Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on. There sure was a good deal of seeds\pollin ect mixed up in everything, so id say, if the plant surivived the 40days of rain, it would be able to repopulate again. There were enough plants to feed the animals, as the world's supply of plants were all swept up in the flood and dispersed all over, there were tons of it and the plants were larger then they are today.
It's not unlike getting someone who knows no maths atall, and telling them that pi=3 because it's in the bible, and that all the myriad of figures directly proving that wrong are all aetheist lies(as an aside, there are actually a fair number of ancient civillisations even predating the bible that had a more accurate value of pi). But if you begin rejecting all the evidence for evolution, then you reject the methodology involved. and then you reject all science, and this computer becomes magic, and we all go back to living in caves and praying for lightning to hit dry bush so we can sit by a fire.
I'm enjoying the thread. It's been a long time since HLP hosted a good Evolution vs. Religious-Nonsense-Posing-As-Science Thread.
Ok dude, thats offensive. We were haveing a good argument, without cutting at the other persons side like that, until you did that. What the hell man? A bit discrimitory.
towards addressing the things most on peoples' minds.
Please list what is on peoples minds.
-
[q]Ok, for once, that is totally incorrect. God did not command Noah to take the plants or pollin (species etc). Only his family and the animals. He sure as anything, did not go and take all the plants into the arc (except for food), and did not seperate them into disparate climatological groups. Where do you get That idea from?[/q]
That's not what I said (although you do add another point; the flood would have wiped out all plant life, which i'll get to below). My point was, the proposition was that the flood had sorted all fossils etc into sediment layers. The problem is, fossilized pollen and plant life clearly indicates distinct climates on distinct strata, so for that to work whatever action that created those strata would have to actually sort down pollen and plants not just so they were grouped together in temporal order, but also climatological.
The only way for that to happen is by the old-earth theory (a reason why it's the accepted one, really), or by God doing it Himself. And in the latter case, why would God create a geological record that expressly contradicts the bible?
[q]
Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on. There sure was a good deal of seeds\pollin ect mixed up in everything, so id say, if the plant surivived the 40days of rain, it would be able to repopulate again. There were enough plants to feed the animals, as the world's supply of plants were all swept up in the flood and dispersed all over, there were tons of it and the plants were larger then they are today.[/q]
Ok, firstly you need to cite evidence of larger size. you also have to account for something which springs to mind, that the ocean covers the vast area of the world. IIRC the explanation creationists offer for the lack of observable channeling from such drainage is that the ocean floors formed after the flood (this is contradicted by ocean sediment dating, which I mentioned a few pages back), the problem is that any draining via the ocean would take a massive amount of plant matter with it; probably all. Also, you'd end up with severe food problems even if the plants were dispersed; plants in the wrong habitats (dying) for example, or species left trying to eat plants that they simply couldn't survive upon (such as koalas and eucalyptus). you'd also have to address the problem of insects that act in a mutually beneficial way acting as pollinators for specific plant species (and also explain how you'd get plants requiring pollination deposited sufficiently close to each other and those supporting insect species).
Plants also require specific established soil types to grow; these would have been eroded by the flood. If the flood deposited the strata as suggested, it'd also mean most if not all seeds would be deposited too deep to grow. Also salt water is lethal to many plants, so you'd have nowhere near the modern diversity. And lets not forget; the flood lasted longer than 40 days; the water lay for 150.
There's also no indication of a global flood in tree ring dating (for an example, one of the oldest known living trees is a Bristlecone pine - it's over 10,000 years old - so you'd be able to expect to find evidence if there was a global flood).
[q]Ok dude, thats offensive. We were haveing a good argument, without cutting at the other persons side like that, until you did that. What the hell man? A bit discrimitory.
[/q]
ID is religious nonsense posing as science, that's kind of the crux of the arguement; it's a religiously motivated attack upon science because it contradicts the bible. It just so happens that the previous bits of this reply are addressing young-earth creationism, as an attempt to show that you simply can't read the bible as a literal history due to some rather obvious scientific and historical contradiction.
-
[q]Ok, for once, that is totally incorrect. God did not command Noah to take the plants or pollin (species etc). Only his family and the animals. He sure as anything, did not go and take all the plants into the arc (except for food), and did not seperate them into disparate climatological groups. Where do you get That idea from?[/q]
That's not what I said (although you do add another point; the flood would have wiped out all plant life, which i'll get to below). My point was, the proposition was that the flood had sorted all fossils etc into sediment layers. The problem is, fossilized pollen and plant life clearly indicates distinct climates on distinct strata, so for that to work whatever action that created those strata would have to actually sort down pollen and plants not just so they were grouped together in temporal order, but also climatological.
Hmm..
The only way for that to happen is by the old-earth theory (a reason why it's the accepted one, really), or by God doing it Himself. And in the latter case, why would God create a geological record that expressly contradicts the bible?
[q]
Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on. There sure was a good deal of seeds\pollin ect mixed up in everything, so id say, if the plant surivived the 40days of rain, it would be able to repopulate again. There were enough plants to feed the animals, as the world's supply of plants were all swept up in the flood and dispersed all over, there were tons of it and the plants were larger then they are today.[/q]
Ok, firstly you need to cite evidence of larger size. you also have to account for something which springs to mind, that the ocean covers the vast area of the world. IIRC the explanation creationists offer for the lack of observable channeling from such drainage is that the ocean floors formed after the flood (this is contradicted by ocean sediment dating, which I mentioned a few pages back), the problem is that any draining via the ocean would take a massive amount of plant matter with it; probably all. Also, you'd end up with severe food problems even if the plants were dispersed; plants in the wrong habitats (dying) for example, or species left trying to eat plants that they simply couldn't survive upon (such as koalas and eucalyptus). you'd also have to address the problem of insects that act in a mutually beneficial way acting as pollinators for specific plant species (and also explain how you'd get plants requiring pollination deposited sufficiently close to each other and those supporting insect species).
Good point. Kudos.
Plants also require specific established soil types to grow; these would have been eroded by the flood. If the flood deposited the strata as suggested, it'd also mean most if not all seeds would be deposited too deep to grow. Also salt water is lethal to many plants, so you'd have nowhere near the modern diversity. And lets not forget; the flood lasted longer than 40 days; the water lay for 150.
There's also no indication of a global flood in tree ring dating (for an example, one of the oldest known living trees is a Bristlecone pine - it's over 10,000 years old - so you'd be able to expect to find evidence if there was a global flood).
Id like to know more about this. Can you link some pics or w\e please.
[q]Ok dude, thats offensive. We were haveing a good argument, without cutting at the other persons side like that, until you did that. What the hell man? A bit discrimitory.
[/q]
ID is religious nonsense posing as science, that's kind of the crux of the arguement; it's a religiously motivated attack upon science because it contradicts the bible. It just so happens that the previous bits of this reply are addressing young-earth creationism, as an attempt to show that you simply can't read the bible as a literal history due to some rather obvious scientific and historical contradiction.
He sure as hell was not talking about ID. It was not being discussed ATM, then. He was makeing fun, in a discriminatory way, of Christianity. To that i took offence, as stated.
-
Christianity poses as science?
You misinterpreted him then...
-
[q]
Id like to know more about this. Can you link some pics or w\e please.[/q]
I got the date wrong, actually; it's about 4,700 rather than 10,400 (the latter is the feet of altitude it lives at - I know, terribly stupid mistake for me to make - the majority of flood dates AFAIK put the flood at happening after this and the oldest trees' 'birth', though). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine gives some general info. This page - http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm - gives some info on the oldest trees.
Fortunately, I don't look a total arse because we can still test the rings of dead trees, which can be matched back about 10,000 years (by comparing the overlapping ring patterns of living trees against dead trees, and then against other dead trees, etc, we can trace back - Dr. Charles Ferguson of the University of Arizona went back to 6273BC doing so, for example). Tree ring dating can be traced back, unbroken, by 11,000 years in this way. The history of the 'King Clone' creosote bush in the Mojave desert is about 11,700 years old (this reproduces by a sort of 'cloning', hence the name and how the age can be traced back); it's been suggested a creoste bush in Palm Springs is even older, but I don't know if that's been proven yet. We also have fossilized (from volcanic action) forests that date to 19,000 years ago.
It's worth noting that the rate of tree ring generation can vary. On average, it indicates a tree age 5% younger than the actual age. Fortunately tree ring dating for the likes of the Bristlecone is well studied and documented. For reference, a flood situation such as the great flood would create a significant climatological change that would be represented in a change in the tree-ring thickness in any trees lucky (incredibly lucky, because they'd be uprooted and buffeted against all kinds of stuff) enough to re-root somewhere. Upright.
[q] He sure as hell was not talking about ID. It was not being discussed ATM, then. He was makeing fun, in a discriminatory way, of Christianity. To that i took offence, as stated.[/q]
Perhaps of your literal young-earth interpretation, and that at the very most. But I very much doubt it was directed at the religion itself.
-
I just dont understand the level of disrespect and posturing that goes on in these threads. If someone errors, cant correction come in more diplomatic termand not synical remarks and mockery?
Perhaps I should point out that ZmaN accused everyone of being seduced by Satan's lies in his first post on the thread. How calmly would you take such a comment?
I agree that there is no need be be insulting but that applies equally to both sides.
When have i insulted? I beleive i have kept my head and been calm mostly for the entire debate (With the happy exception of Crayz Ivans post)
The saddest thing about this thread is that it really is obvious that Charismatic and ZmaN simply don't understand evolution, but more importantly, don't want to understand evolution. And it sounds as though it's not necessarily because you've looked both over, pondered the evidence, and made a decision. It's that you've been taught to think that way. It is essentially exactly what people who support ID to want.
In a way I can't blame them. It'd be like if somebody one day were to start trying to argue to me that little gremlins make lights glow. Obviously I'd dispute and respond with theories about electrons. But really, I'd just be going by what I'd been taught - I personally haven't done an experiment on the scale of an electron.
But I guess at the same time, you have to look at who's supporting Evolution and why. It's chiefly scientists and learned. people. Meanwhile, the people who support ID are mostly Christians. The mere fact that there are so many opinions on what, exactly, Creation is should be a warning sign right away.
I'll leave you with this bit of a comment, that I think was originally said by Thunder/Kalfireth awhile back. If God were to show up sometime in the early BCs, and to start dictating the bible to someone, would he spend the time on explaining stellar formation, genetics, geography, continental drift, molecular biology, etc etc and everything that goes into the scientific theories? Or would he just put it in simple terms that everyone could understand without requiring a lifetime of learning?
Personally I think it'd be the latter. The Bible is about how to live your life in accordance with God's plan, not to a science textbook.
Thats an interesting site. Nice to see a site that can acknowledge both current real science and the Judea/Christian faith. As fare as I'm concerned, I dont need science to validate faith, but I always like to stay on top of current scientific findings and research.
I just dont understand the level of disrespect and posturing that goes on in these threads. If someone errors, cant correction come in more diplomatic termand not synical remarks and mockery?
It's hard not to be cynical when such basic mistakes are not just being made but actually taught. We've seen this, what, 3 or 4 times by now - the same errors, the same basic mistakes, and the same unwillingness to listen. Yeah, it is a bit rude, and it is a bit of a turkey shoot, but to be frank I lost any sense of respect for that sort of intentional and willing blindness a long time ago and if an idea is stupid and idiotic I'm damn well going to say so.
I mean, we are talking about a thread where Zman posts some keyword, I have to look up what he actually (I presume) means by it, post why it's scientifically proven to be wrong with example sof the reasearch, and the response is
[q]Ill post the science pages when Im done with school.
And if youre asking why I havent posted it yet, its because i have a life beyond HLP..
And everything that was in the article I was gunna write is in the science book so theres no use in writing it. you can just read the pages yourself... Of course, youre gunna make up some other bullcrap "the books wrong, im right, your stupid!!!" kinda arguments. go ahead. Im ready for it..[/q]
Bullcrap. 200 years(+) of human endeavour, dismissed as 'bullcrap' because some bloody creationist propaganda textbook says so. Moreso, that book, I bet, will claim to 'prove' this using scientific results, and in effect aim to disprove something using the standards set by science, and having to actually break or ignore those standards in order to do so (such as selectively picking evidence to predetermine a conclusion, or ignoring contradictory proofs).
So yeah, maybe some of the replies have been rude, etc. But can you really blame people for getting pissed off? This genuinely threatens human progress - justnow it's evolution, and that might not seem to immediately disasterous for societal welfare, but just wait until it turns to things like medicine (where it kind of has begun to already) and we end up praying rather than getting prescriptions.
You yell at my ass for getting your fundamentals wrong, but yet you go on about wrong christian fundamentals. We beleive in healing by, A) God, supernatural means, physically, B) God, emotionally and internally, within ones mind\life, C) By Medicine and Doctors.
From, "Healing in the Name of God, Faith or Fraud?" By Ted Schwarz.
"(Page 21-22) Legitimate faith healers expect success yet reconize that they have no idea what shape the healing may take or when it may occur. They know tha God can grow anew hand on the arm of a machinist who lost it in an industrial accident, for example. They also know that God may choose to not do so, indeed seldom has done so, and that the machinist may go throught life with a prosthesis instead. They see healing in three forums --- the miraculous we understand, the miraculous beyond comprehension, and the internal (Spiritual/Psychological) healing. A miraculous healing we understand involves medical knowledge used to cure someone of heart problems, cancer, or an illness such as pneumonia. We have learned to put togeather what might be considered the pieces of a puzzel---medication, a surgical procedure, in halation therapy, physical therapy, and all the other tools we have learned to help the body recover. We are wothking with GOds creation as we have learned to do, being allowed ina tiny way to share in his miraculous healing powers. (yadayada)
A miraculous haling beyond comprehension is the helaing that ocurs whe 'irreversible' medical conditions are reversed. The person whose body is so wasted that death seems inevitable rallies, heals, and returns to normal life. The inoperable cancer goes into remission for so many years that the person dies from the ravages of old age, not from the disease. The malignant tumor on the long dissapeares. We witness the hand of God without human ivolvoement other then through faith expressed in prayer for the ill person.
Internal healing comes when the afflicted person finds peace with a life that may not be the kind he or she anticipated. (...skip ahead)However, Louise experianced a deep inner healing--an incomprehensible peace and aceptance of her illness. Her anxiety was replaced by joy that spilled over to everyone seh met. Her p ain is still very real; she copes with it every day. Bu GOds gracehas touched her so deepy that she lives with the pain and the degeenration of her body with grace and calm. People around her are amazed at her ability to be joyfull, mentally productive, and active in serving the Lord despite her severe illness. (yada yada)"
NB: i missed this earlier;
does anyone wanna explain, without using evolution, how there are many different races, all of which a directly descended from a single white (according to many religious paintings) couple? )I presume this is a quote?)
When a new generation was born, people went in different directions...
If you went where there was more sunlight, then you had darker skin..
Dude, its so possible...
So why are babies born black to black parents? And mixed-colour to mixed-race parents? Wouldn't changing skin colour (to be precise, the preservation of a skin colour change due to it having a natural advantage) in response to the environment, and then maintaining that skin colour across generations, even when the people have moved to different climates ala to the UK, be evidence of evolution?
Yes. Yes it would, and is. I believe the/a theory is that skin colour effects things like Vitamin D intake, and that lighter skin is beneficial in 'cold' areas as it allows greated Vitamin D intake from the reduced sunlight, whereas darker skin is advantageous in warm areas as it blocks Vitamin D, which can be toxic in high concentations (the initial darker skin evolution is possibly a response to the loss of hairy bodies, which in turn is IIRC likely due to the evolution of sweat glands that would soak hair and cause heating problems, etc). So not only does evolution address and predict such a change as a selected adaptation, science also provides a proper solid reason. Evolution also explains why we don't see white people who emigrate to Africa turn black overnight - or the converse - as evolution moves fastest in smaller populations where genetic changes are able to more rapidly propagate across that population.
In a way I can't blame them. It'd be like if somebody one day were to start trying to argue to me that little gremlins make lights glow. Obviously I'd dispute and respond with theories about electrons. But really, I'd just be going by what I'd been taught - I personally haven't done an experiment on the scale of an electron.
That's a fair point, but it has to be heavily tempered with the fact that science is peer-reviewed and transparent; the results and methodology are not just cross-checked, but published so they can be checked. It's also open to revisal, provided there is sufficient grounds provided (i.e. evidence gathered using the scientific method). whereas something like Id goes the opposite way, as we've seen already. Just look at that 'humans are closest to chickens' type quote going back to about page 2. Now, we're meant to take that on face value. But if you look into it, there is no supporting evidence provided, no basis given, and that extends beyond the usage of quoting what sounds like an explicit fact but turns out to be completely unfounded and have, literally, as much factual basis as me just declaring 'fish are bicycles'. And it's not as if the very proponent of that 'fact' hasn't been challenged to provide evidence, because he has - and has failed. I believe it was Gish, actually (Gish is an Id/creationist spokeperson masquerading as a scientist; from what i understand he's a pretty good orator who specialises in fault science and 'debates' with selectively picked opposition).
That's why I'm so confident this vaunted science book will be, to quote myself, a 'creationist propaganda textbook'; because everything Zman has put so far has been a sort of buzzword or set of buzzwords, with no elucidation (presumably because he has none - he just takes it at face value because the book does) or explanation, and where even the most basic cursory examination proves it (or rather, what you'd presume to be it, because 'it' is undefined) to be scientifically proven wrong and even delberately misleading or faked. And because each rubuttal receives no attempt to scientifically response, it implies to me Zman - or Charismatic - don't actually have any scientific understanding of the reason they give, let alone why it is copiously wrong. So we get that response quoted at the top.
It's frustrating as hell not to have any scientific debate here, but i guess inevitable because even a cursory understanding or wish to understand reveals how wrong the creationist theories are proven to be, so Id works very hard to make sure it's young proponents are unwilling to listen. But if the Vatican can not only allow but endorse evolution, I think that says a lot about theological validity - would God give us brains, free will, curiousity, rationality and not let us use them? I doubt it, even if I am an aetheist.
I have expressly stated several times i am willin to learn and listen and conciter what you guys are saying, which i am. Do not say incorrect statements like that please.
A thought just occurred to me, one that's actually quite fundemental to this argument and yet totally unrelated to science. Intelligent Design is invalid from a religious standpoint, provided one thinks it through.
If ID is in fact true, that is fundemental, irrefutable proof of God. But proof denies faith. Without faith, organized religion and God Himself are nothing. We have never been promised proof of His existance. Indeed, He wishes us to take Him upon faith alone, without proof. Faith is what will in the end save you. Faith is what you are asked to have; no more, no less.
Intelligent Design denies faith. And in denying faith, you deny God.
Who is the greater assault upon Christanity now?
Shivans.
-
[q]You yell at my ass for getting your fundamentals wrong, but yet you go on about wrong christian fundamentals. We beleive in healing by, A) God, supernatural means, physically, B) God, emotionally and internally, within ones mind\life, C) By Medicine and Doctors.
From, "Healing in the Name of God, Faith or Fraud?" By Ted Schwarz.
"(Page 21-22) Legitimate faith healers expect success yet reconize that they have no idea what shape the healing may take or when it may occur. They know tha God can grow anew hand on the arm of a machinist who lost it in an industrial accident, for example. They also know that God may choose to not do so, indeed seldom has done so, and that the machinist may go throught life with a prosthesis instead. They see healing in three forums --- the miraculous we understand, the miraculous beyond comprehension, and the internal (Spiritual/Psychological) healing. A miraculous healing we understand involves medical knowledge used to cure someone of heart problems, cancer, or an illness such as pneumonia. We have learned to put togeather what might be considered the pieces of a puzzel---medication, a surgical procedure, in halation therapy, physical therapy, and all the other tools we have learned to help the body recover. We are wothking with GOds creation as we have learned to do, being allowed ina tiny way to share in his miraculous healing powers. (yadayada)
A miraculous haling beyond comprehension is the helaing that ocurs whe 'irreversible' medical conditions are reversed. The person whose body is so wasted that death seems inevitable rallies, heals, and returns to normal life. The inoperable cancer goes into remission for so many years that the person dies from the ravages of old age, not from the disease. The malignant tumor on the long dissapeares. We witness the hand of God without human ivolvoement other then through faith expressed in prayer for the ill person.
Internal healing comes when the afflicted person finds peace with a life that may not be the kind he or she anticipated. (...skip ahead)However, Louise experianced a deep inner healing--an incomprehensible peace and aceptance of her illness. Her anxiety was replaced by joy that spilled over to everyone seh met. Her p ain is still very real; she copes with it every day. Bu GOds gracehas touched her so deepy that she lives with the pain and the degeenration of her body with grace and calm. People around her are amazed at her ability to be joyfull, mentally productive, and active in serving the Lord despite her severe illness. (yada yada)"[/q]
I think I answered this earlier, so you can reach that bit.
Is Ted Schwarz a doctor? It strikes me to be at best pseudo science;
Anyways, I'm afraid you missed my point
The attack (and it is, it's not any sort of rational debate because they would lose) upon evolution is an attack upon basic scientific principles of observation. You can see this in the way the ID camp misrepresents and cherry picks the data they need, ignoring contradiction from established research and dismissing rather than addressing very real problems in their 'theory' (hypothesis would be the correct scientific term). If we allow that, then it opens up a pandoras box whereby any form of secular advancement is open to attack because we no longer value rationality and scientific observation. Things like medicine, physics, etc all were developed using the same scientific medicine as established the theory of evolution; an attack upon evolution is thus and attack upon the basis for all scientific advancement.
[q]I have expressly stated several times i am willin to learn and listen and conciter what you guys are saying, which i am. Do not say incorrect statements like that please.[/q]
The problem is that you made several replies using points I or someone else had already addressed to be false, given reasons, etc. That is very frustrating, because it makes us think we're being ignored.
-
Im big on greek myths. I know some of the stories, i have a few books. Their cool and fun to read, about Zuse (Sp? lol i cant beleive i cant spell that name) and Herculies (my spellin is ****) etc.
That misses the point. The point has nothing to do with whether you are fimilar with the Greek mythos or not (most people are, at least well enough to know who 'Zeus' and 'Hercules' are), but that you would consider making references to those names (of gods in a now dead religion) to be blasphemy to be as silly as we consider young-earth creationism (and really ID, since that's the one that carries a real threat to education and ultimately our scientific advancement) and not worth taking seriously. It's a parallel, nothing more.
Ok, for once, that is totally incorrect. God did not command Noah to take the plants or pollin (species etc). Only his family and the animals. He sure as anything, did not go and take all the plants into the arc (except for food), and did not seperate them into disparate climatological groups. Where do you get That idea from?
Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on. There sure was a good deal of seeds\pollin ect mixed up in everything, so id say, if the plant surivived the 40days of rain, it would be able to repopulate again. There were enough plants to feed the animals, as the world's supply of plants were all swept up in the flood and dispersed all over, there were tons of it and the plants were larger then they are today.
Out of context much? Maybe me putting that bit about plants into one of my flood responses is paying its dividends if you finally stop to think about things. Anyway, this has already been addressed to plenty of length by aldo so I won't harp on it more. All I will say is that if you think plants can just float around for 3 months with no ill consequences, then I'll be happy to come levy up your yard and fill it full of brackish water until mid-July. We'll see how much of that grass lives through that.
Ok dude, thats offensive. We were haveing a good argument, without cutting at the other persons side like that, until you did that. What the hell man? A bit discrimitory.
The Creationist/ID stance has long treated science with an abysmal attitude. Attacks on the motivations behind it, attacks on the people doing the research, attacks on the methods. And it's extremely discriminatory because it automatically assumes that science must be wrong. All of it. Because heaven forbid we hold science that doesn't conflict with a literal creationist viewpoint in a different light.
In reality, Crazy Ivan is calling a spade a spade with his comment. There's no way creationism will ever be able to stand as real science because it is flawed so fundamentally and cannot get past those flaws. Force it to stand on a scientific foundation, and it will collapse within seconds.
towards addressing the things most on peoples' minds.
Please list what is on peoples minds.
OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!! The whole sentence is at least a nice place to start.
What I mean is that if you post from today's threads backwards, then you will respond to things most recently posted and, as a consequence, most recently thought about. If you try to go back to page 6 and work your way forward, you're going to be quoting things that have little relevance to where the discussion is now as most have been discussed, debated and seemingly summarily ignored when you're formulating your response to that snippit on page 6. I'll admit, that paragraph didn't state what it was intended to as lucidly as it could have, but you should have at least been able to figure out what I was trying to say.
EDIT: I give up trying to keep up with your color style, especially if there was some significance to your switching. Orange blob now becomes white.
From, "Healing in the Name of God, Faith or Fraud?" By Ted Schwarz.
"(Page 21-22) Legitimate faith healers expect success yet reconize that they have no idea what shape the healing may take or when it may occur. They know tha God can grow anew hand on the arm of a machinist who lost it in an industrial accident, for example. They also know that God may choose to not do so, indeed seldom has done so, and that the machinist may go throught life with a prosthesis instead. They see healing in three forums --- the miraculous we understand, the miraculous beyond comprehension, and the internal (Spiritual/Psychological) healing. A miraculous healing we understand involves medical knowledge used to cure someone of heart problems, cancer, or an illness such as pneumonia. We have learned to put togeather what might be considered the pieces of a puzzel---medication, a surgical procedure, in halation therapy, physical therapy, and all the other tools we have learned to help the body recover. We are wothking with GOds creation as we have learned to do, being allowed ina tiny way to share in his miraculous healing powers. (yadayada)
A miraculous haling beyond comprehension is the helaing that ocurs whe 'irreversible' medical conditions are reversed. The person whose body is so wasted that death seems inevitable rallies, heals, and returns to normal life. The inoperable cancer goes into remission for so many years that the person dies from the ravages of old age, not from the disease. The malignant tumor on the long dissapeares. We witness the hand of God without human ivolvoement other then through faith expressed in prayer for the ill person.
Internal healing comes when the afflicted person finds peace with a life that may not be the kind he or she anticipated. (...skip ahead)However, Louise experianced a deep inner healing--an incomprehensible peace and aceptance of her illness. Her anxiety was replaced by joy that spilled over to everyone seh met. Her p ain is still very real; she copes with it every day. Bu GOds gracehas touched her so deepy that she lives with the pain and the degeenration of her body with grace and calm. People around her are amazed at her ability to be joyfull, mentally productive, and active in serving the Lord despite her severe illness. (yada yada)"
Funny, the only two "miracles" described there are 1) healing by modern medicine (easily explained without God) and 2) the power of the human spirit (which also does not require God). But more telling is your source: from a quick Google search: Ted Schwarz is not a doctor. He is an author, and a relatively prolific one at that, but he appears to write books based that sell rather than sticking with a particular genre. (He does have a number of faith-based books, I'll concede, but that doesn't make him an expert on medical practices, results, or expectations for deadly and "incurable" diseases) Whether he truely believes what he writes is not something I'm qualified to answer, but until he can show some evidence to back it up over mere assertion then he cannot say that science is invalid (nor does he in the paragraph you quoted; forgive me for not looking this one up in full). Faith alongside science is fine, as long as the faith can adapt to new scientific relevations. Quite the opposite of trying to supress science due to contradiction.
Ironically, the first thing that came up on the google search was something about the Branch Davidians (Waco, Texas) which doesn't suggest good things about the credibility of that source.
-
Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on.
To add to what Aldo said, a land plant would also drown. As I understand it land plants need air to survive.
-
Any plants that surivived the flood may have re-rooted and lived on.
To add to what Aldo said, a land plant would also drown. As I understand it land plants need air to survive.
Doubly so. They resperate to get CO2 out of the air for use in photosynthesis, and also draw their source of oxygen for matabolism from the air IIRC. Denying them access to air for a prolonged period of time would result in them ceasing to function and eventually breaking down. Seeds, admittedly, can live a while longer. But salt would kill those pretty effectively even if they could survive in water.
-
an attack upon evolution is thus and attack upon the basis for all scientific advancement.
Yep. If the ID people did win how long would it be before someone went after geology for saying that the world is more than 6,000 years old? Or astronomy for saying that there are stars older than that?
Thats why you'll find most scientists have a line in the sand attitude to letting attacks on evolution get through.
-
Of course, considering the speed of light and the distance of stars, had the universe been created 6000 years ago, how come we can see light that has left stars that are several million light years away? Or is the Speed of Light and Red Shift side of science incorrect as well?
-
You missed that. God apparently created the light to make it look like the stars were millions of light-years away, when in fact the light itself is only 6,000 (no, 10,000. No, 6,000. 10,000! 6,000! Gah!!!) years old. :rolleyes:
Page 15, about a quarter the way down the page. Second or third natively orange paragraph. The lengths people will go to in order to justify the unjustifiable.
-
Ah right, didn't see that. He's a joker that God isn't he? Pulling all these stunts with the physics of the entire universe just to confuse a few million people on a planet lurking in the spiral arm of a very average galaxy...
-
I thought the stars were all painted on a bit cylindrical thing that sits on top of the flat earth?
Tsch, i'm so out of touch.
-
Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils - how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in.
He said, "Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith."
Thank God I'm strapped in right now here man. I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that?
"uh huh."
Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. ****in' with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around:
"Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha." [mimes God burying fossils] "I am God, I am a prankster." "I am killing Me."
You know, You die and go to St. Peter... "Did you believe in dinosaurs?"
"Well, yeah. There was fossils everywhere" Thuh [trapdoor opens] "Aaaaaaarhhh!"
"You ****in idiot." "Flying lizards, you're a moron. God was ****in' with you!"
"It seemed so plausible, ahhhh!"
"Enjoy the lake of fire, ****er!"
Still miss Bill Hicks even now.
-
hehehehe
The thing that sealed it for me was the fact that these massive distances in time work in both directions. For example, we know that in about 5 billion years time the Milky Way and M31 are going to collide. Admittedly, the effect of the collision will be minimal as far as we can tell, maybe 3-4 systems being effected in the entire galacy, according to current thinking, but it still makes me smile that God created his chosen people in a galaxy he's planning an enormous game of conkers with.
-
Admittedly, the effect of the collision will be minimal as far as we can tell, maybe 3-4 systems being effected in the entire galacy, according to current thinking, but it still makes me smile that God created his chosen people in a galaxy he's planning an enormous game of conkers with.
:lol:
-
Posted by Charismatic
You yell at my ass for getting your fundamentals wrong, but yet you go on about wrong christian fundamentals. We beleive in healing by, A) God, supernatural means, physically, B) God, emotionally and internally, within ones mind\life, C) By Medicine and Doctors.
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm <-- Poor amputees. Good thing that biomedical science might eventually solve their problems where prayer can't.
By the way, here's a little quiz problem for you folks (especially the Creationists):
"In 2004, Ohio farmers produced $820,000,000 of genetically modified soybeans. Such GM technologies depend on and provide strong support for which biological concept?"
A) Metaphasic interference
B) Descent from a common ancestor
C) Ecological succession
D) One-gene; one-enzyme
E) Endoplasmic reticulum
Answer key: http://science2.marion.ohio-state.edu/ohioscience/AnswerKey.pdf
-
hehehehe
The thing that sealed it for me was the fact that these massive distances in time work in both directions. For example, we know that in about 5 billion years time the Milky Way and M31 are going to collide. Admittedly, the effect of the collision will be minimal as far as we can tell, maybe 3-4 systems being effected in the entire galacy, according to current thinking, but it still makes me smile that God created his chosen people in a galaxy he's planning an enormous game of conkers with.
Imagine the size of the jar of vinegar!
-
From the ads at the bottom of the page...
http://www.thercg.org/books/effai.pdf
ROFL They call this 'Evolution, Facts and Fallacies', and yet, withing the first 2 pages state that evolution is based on survival of the fittest. No self-respecting biology teacher would use that phrase to describe evolution, Darwin most certainly never did, it was coined by a reporter, not by a scientist.
Edit : Oh, and whilst they berate Evolution for being nothing more than a theory, apparently, the scientific theory of Biogenesis, which , according to them, disproves evolution, is irrefutable fact...
-
Its not the opposing side in this debate that infuriates me - its the existence of the debate in the first place; By its very nature the mere existence of this debate implies an acceptance of the notion that a religious belief is equal to a scientific argument.
-
To be fair, it's not so much the existance of the question as it is the continuation of the debate in the face of knowledge that it's completely unfounded. I don't mind the questioning because if it's covered even half-heartedly and listened to with an open mind then it can only lead to a better understanding of the correct position or at least a better understanding of what the established theory is and why. It's the continuing ignorance and/or willingness to lie or argue with discredited sources that really gets under my skin.
-
Problem is, a lot of ID supporters use a Jack Thompson school of thinking. They'll make a incredibly facetious claim and if scientists refute it then they are 'running scared', but if they say nothing then they are 'acknowledging defeat.'.
It's like that document I posted, I states at the start that science 'tries to hide behind incredibly confusing or misleading explanations'. What that actually means is 'what they said is too complex and we can't be bothered to go figure it out.'. Still makes me laugh that Evolution is a sham because its a complicated answer in their simple little worlds.
-
I just wish we could take everyone who tries to present ID as science and prevent them from using any of the fruits of scientific endeavor. No electricity, no phone, no transportation, and no modern medicine. The only downside is that it would also bar their use of contraceptives, but something tells me that they aren't using them anyway.
-
The only downside is that it would also bar their use of contraceptives
Contraceptives? What're those? Surely you mean abstinence.
-
The only downside is that it would also bar their use of contraceptives
Contraceptives? What're those? Surely you mean abstinence.
abstinence? what's that :nervous: :confused:
:cool:
-
I just wish we could take everyone who tries to present ID as science and prevent them from using any of the fruits of scientific endeavor. No electricity, no phone, no transportation, and no modern medicine. The only downside is that it would also bar their use of contraceptives, but something tells me that they aren't using them anyway.
There's some pretty low-tech contraceptives and abordificients ;)
-
The only downside is that it would also bar their use of contraceptives
Contraceptives? What're those? Surely you mean abstinence.
abstinence? what's that :nervous: :confused:
:cool:
Very boring from what I remember...
-
I just wish we could take everyone who tries to present ID as science and prevent them from using any of the fruits of scientific endeavor. No electricity, no phone, no transportation, and no modern medicine. The only downside is that it would also bar their use of contraceptives, but something tells me that they aren't using them anyway.
There's some pretty low-tech contraceptives and abordificients ;)
Kit Kat wrappers and pulling out at the last second don't count. :p
-
has char caught up yet?
-
so can I declaire victory now?
-
Flawresss Victollyyyy!
-
Uh, you all realize that spam only makes Charismatic's job more difficult, right?
And we haven't won until he admits defeat. As he said earlier, he likely won't be able to reply for a few more days.
-
when is he going to get back?
and if it drops off the front he'll probly forget.
-
You guys should check this out, its funny :D
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/04/the_quixotic_message_or_no_fre.php#more
-
Remember, Charis isn't a supporter of ID, he supports everything that ID says, but opposes how ID crossed out 'God' and wrote in 'Intelligent Designer'.
-
when is he going to get back?
and if it drops off the front he'll probly forget.
Of course the real irony is that if instead of reading his creationist books and composing arguments for us he'd simply read The Selfish Gene instead he'd probably not have much to say in opposition to us.
-
Remember, Charis isn't a supporter of ID, he supports everything that ID says, but opposes how ID crossed out 'God' and wrote in 'Intelligent Designer'.
Speaking of which Im still wanting to see him back up his statement that ID supposedly "denies and opposed Christianity".
-
Actually I think he's got a better picture of what ID is now following other explainations on this thread. I doubt he'd make the same assertion now.
-
Whatever happened to Zman and his textbook, anyways?
-
Ouch, you guys pasted poor Char :p
There's some pretty low-tech contraceptives and abordificients ;)
They had condoms in the wild west - did ya know that? I didn't know until I saw this special on the History Channel or something on "Wild West Tech". Apparantly they were sheepskin or w/e.
-
Oh, theres plenty more where that came from, I haven't even mentioned Forest Elephants, the third elephant, or indeed the unusual thing about elephant lungs in general ;)
-
Speaking of which Im still wanting to see him back up his statement that ID supposedly "denies and opposed Christianity".
That's my statement, substituting "organized religion" for "Christianity". And you could read the backup if you bothered to find it.
-
For teh record, i did not willingly leave from the topic. Once i got back, i had to work and get back into the swing of things - school etc.
I promise i will finish reading but things are really buzy and i dont expect anytime soon.
I will however, continue this and re-post in it in a later date, tho it may be horribly out-of-date (several pages off main page). So dont yell at me 4 it then.
PS: Am i th eonly one who see's the fourms ****ed up in its color scheme? Wheres the red and black normal theme? I saw no topic about it on main page.
-
They're still working on the new format, shouldn't be long and it'll all be back to its non-naked format ;)
-
naked.. i feel cold.. and naked..
Why dont they keep the regular format UP untill they finish the new format? So were not cold and naked in the meantime?
-
Because you can now use...... The Search Function ;)
For my part, that alone is worth putting up with white for a while :D
-
What did everyone need to search for that was so vital?
-
er...............
Shush you! :nervous:
-
What did everyone need to search for that was so vital?
If you had to type answers to technical questions that take 10-15 minutes or more even though you knew you'd answered that question in the past you'd want search back too. :D
-
lol
i actually like ppl being forced to actualy give you an answer, and not a 15 page topic to find one perticualr dam post in..
-
er...............
Shush you! :nervous:
Soapy...nevermind.
<,< >,>
-
lol
i actually like ppl being forced to actualy give you an answer, and not a 15 page topic to find one perticualr dam post in..
Yeah, but usually the answers you seek are found in the first three posts of the thread. It's only in a discussion like this, where you really should read the whole debate anyway, that you need to spend more time reading to find the explanation than it takes someone to search and link.
-
interestingly the answere to this thread is in the first post :)
-
lol
i actually like ppl being forced to actualy give you an answer, and not a 15 page topic to find one perticualr dam post in..
The idea of Intelligent Design has basically no support in the scientific community. It is not a scientific theory. It does not in any way disprove the experiments and evidence that prove evolution.
Therefore, it has no place being presented as a valid scientific theory, and should not be taught in a science class.
That's really the short form of it, you've just been very lucky that people have been willing to cater to your disbelief and take the time to post facts and sources for 15 pages.
-
lol
i actually like ppl being forced to actualy give you an answer, and not a 15 page topic to find one perticualr dam post in..
The idea of Intelligent Design has basically no support in the scientific community. It is not a scientific theory. It does not in any way disprove the experiments and evidence that prove evolution.
Therefore, it has no place being presented as a valid scientific theory, and should not be taught in a science class.
That's really the short form of it, you've just been very lucky that people have been willing to cater to your disbelief and take the time to post facts and sources for 15 pages.
Posting facts and sources is fun, these threads often have huge amounts of interesting and funny information.
-
Yep. I tend to learn all kinds of interesting stuff from these threads even though I know a reasonable amount about the subject already :)
-
Speaking of which Im still wanting to see him back up his statement that ID supposedly "denies and opposed Christianity".
That's my statement, substituting "organized religion" for "Christianity". And you could read the backup if you bothered to find it.
Forgive me if I missed it, I dont know if youve noticed how many pages this thread has, but thats still nonsence. I would absolutely love to argue this out as I do think this is the most ridiculous comment I had read in a while. So, would you care to back up your assertion a second time? Im sure it wouldnt take up too much of your time.
Ed
-
Well, frankly, search is borkified since it turns up my post but attributes it to Charismatic, and links to the wrong place in the thread.
Page 9, about halfway up.
-
A thought just occurred to me, one that's actually quite fundemental to this argument and yet totally unrelated to science. Intelligent Design is invalid from a religious standpoint, provided one thinks it through.
If ID is in fact true, that is fundemental, irrefutable proof of God. But proof denies faith. Without faith, organized religion and God Himself are nothing. We have never been promised proof of His existance. Indeed, He wishes us to take Him upon faith alone, without proof. Faith is what will in the end save you. Faith is what you are asked to have; no more, no less.
Intelligent Design denies faith. And in denying faith, you deny God.
Who is the greater assault upon Christanity now?
@Edward Bradshaw
I believe - correct me if i'm wrong - that ngtm1r was trying to make the point that Intelligent Design is an inherently contradictory and self-defeating thing, because it seeks to trojan-horse God into the science classroom with a premise that, if any way proveable or testable as science has to be, would destroy the faith basis of religions (which have always used the lack of any sort of observable evidence as a sort of test as to 'worthiness' on the part of believers).
-
And God would vanish in a poof of logic.
-
Well, frankly, search is borkified since it turns up my post but attributes it to Charismatic, and links to the wrong place in the thread.
Page 9, about halfway up.
You talking about this post?
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg798898.html#msg798898
Because I was replying to the part where it says...
"A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. This group, which emerged in recent years, believes that there is no God or creator"
So, was that you? Because if it was, I cant see where you back this up.
Ed
-
Well, frankly, search is borkified since it turns up my post but attributes it to Charismatic, and links to the wrong place in the thread.
Page 9, about halfway up.
Ah, you're (both) getting your wire crossed here. Both said that, but in different contexts; ngtm1r to show how it's self-defeating and completely irrational, and Charismatic because he was, put simply, taken in by the 'ID is science' claptrap that hides the creationist origins so it can be forced into the science curriculum.
You talking about this post?
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg798898.html#msg798898
Because I was replying to the part where it says...
"A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. This group, which emerged in recent years, believes that there is no God or creator"
So, was that you? Because if it was, I cant see where you back this up.
Ed
-
Well, frankly, search is borkified since it turns up my post but attributes it to Charismatic, and links to the wrong place in the thread.
Page 9, about halfway up.
Ah, you're (both) getting your wire crossed here. Both said that, but in different contexts; ngtm1r to show how it's self-defeating and completely irrational, and Charismatic because he was, put simply, taken in by the 'ID is science' claptrap that hides the creationist origins so it can be forced into the science curriculum.
You talking about this post?
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg798898.html#msg798898
Because I was replying to the part where it says...
"A faction called Intelligent Design, opposes evolution and denies Christianity at the same time. This group, which emerged in recent years, believes that there is no God or creator"
So, was that you? Because if it was, I cant see where you back this up.
Ed
I always find it weird when someone quotes someones post but writes nothing as a responce. I have no idea what it means! :D :D
-
Edward, there is an extra sentence in the quote, check it out.
Right after ngtm1r's quote.
-
How the hell did that happen?
-
Aldo quoted the correct post. I haven't got a clue where the other one came from.
-
Aldo intended to split the post but missed the inner endquote and the start of the next one, it looks like. That can cause confusion from time to time.
-
Aldo quoted the correct post. I haven't got a clue where the other one came from.
Then I wasnt talking about a post of yours afterall/
-
Aldo intended to split the post but missed the inner endquote and the start of the next one, it looks like. That can cause confusion from time to time.
And then edit stopped working for some reason (timeout), so I couldn't edit it. Gah. :)
-
I see that this has already been brought up before, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Has anyone gotten a workaround for that?
BTW, how do complex systems evolve from simple ones? Okay, this means assuming we're talking about more than "microevolution" or small change within an existing, complex system.
eg You can scramble a few table values in FS and get some interesting results, maybe to your benefit, but that's not making a whole new game from nothing.
OK, I think the theory is that "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection" produces those results over long periods of time. But, for that to work on a complex system, you must have intelligent input. Because any additional organ, for example, is more likely to become a liability than an asset in a fight for survival unless it >poof!< evolved instantaneously. ie, If you just crawled out of the water, and you're dragging your tail behind you, that'd make you an easy lunch. But you'd never make it out of the water because while you were evolving your legs, that made you a snack for a gator. Oh, wait a minute. That's right. I forgot. The new theory is that the cows started on land and evolved into whales. Right. (not meaning to be too snotty there, sorry.) Okay, and what makes you think the gene code for the legs (or tail, if you're going into the water) would stay there for more than a few generations? Unless it proved of some benefit to the organism (and for that it'd have to function to some degree of efficiency) it'd be dropped off. Like that tail you didn't need when you tripped over something on the way out the door. I've always wondered about that one.
EDIT: The problem with survival of the fittest / natural selection is that it has no foresight. None. Nada. It can only react. The only way around that is to say that various mutations happened to be beneficial for a certain situation, and happened to have evolved for no reason whatsoever, and had been ready and in-place when something happened to necessitate their existence.
BTW I'll try and read up on this thread. I was thinking of starting my own, but now I see the discussion's already begun. Ha!
-
I see that this has already been brought up before, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Has anyone gotten a workaround for that?
Doesn't apply. entropy requires a closed system; Earth is not a closed system.
BTW, how do complex systems evolve from simple ones? Okay, this means assuming we're talking about more than "microevolution" or small change within an existing, complex system.
eg You can scramble a few table values in FS and get some interesting results, maybe to your benefit, but that's not making a whole new game from nothing.
OK, I think the theory is that "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection" produces those results over long periods of time. But, for that to work on a complex system, you must have intelligent input. Because any additional organ, for example, is more likely to become a liability than an asset in a fight for survival unless it >poof!< evolved instantaneously. ie, If you just crawled out of the water, and you're dragging your tail behind you, that'd make you an easy lunch. But you'd never make it out of the water because while you were evolving your legs, that made you a snack for a gator. Oh, wait a minute. That's right. I forgot. The new theory is that the cows started on land and evolved into whales. Right. (not meaning to be too snotty there, sorry.) Okay, and what makes you think the gene code for the legs (or tail, if you're going into the water) would stay there for more than a few generations? Unless it proved of some benefit to the organism (and for that it'd have to function to some degree of efficiency) it'd be dropped off. Like that tail you didn't need when you tripped over something on the way out the door. I've always wondered about that one.
It's simple; how much better is it to be short-sighted, than blind?
(oh, and actual liabilities are cut down by natural selection, unless they are beneficial in sexual selection)
Um, and you're not talking sudden sharp changes, anyways. The changes - morphological - are very long term and full of tiny increments. The assumption that organs appear instantaneous in what might be termed 'modern form' is a major mistake, but a sadly common one.
NB: a tail that was disadvantageous would be culled before developing into a full form (so to speak).
EDIT: The problem with survival of the fittest / natural selection is that it has no foresight. None. Nada. It can only react. The only way around that is to say that various mutations happened to be beneficial for a certain situation, and happened to have evolved for no reason whatsoever, and had been ready and in-place when something happened to necessitate their existence.
BTW I'll try and read up on this thread. I was thinking of starting my own, but now I see the discussion's already begun. Ha!
That's the whole point. There is no foresight required.... but the overwhelming vast majority of mutations are negative or simply invisible. Offhand, the average human will have 7-15 gene mutations, and most are pretty much unnoticeable.
You're making the classic mistake, I think, of thinking that something that is kept as advantageous, is the only 'design' (in physical terms, i.e. body design) that can possibly arise with that benefit.
EDIT; whale evolution; http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
It saddens me that the first page of google results seems to dominated by creationist propaganda rubbish; what is this world coming to?
-
Doesn't apply. entropy requires a closed system; Earth is not a closed system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system
In thermodynamics, an isolated system, as contrasted with a closed system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside. An example is in the study of spacetime, where it is assumed that asymptotically flat spacetimes exist.
Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality, but real systems may behave nearly this way for finite (possibly very long) times. The concept of an isolated system can serve as a useful model approximating many real-world situations. It is an acceptable idealization used in constructing mathematical models of certain natural phenomena; e.g., the Sun and planets in our solar system, and the proton and electron in a hydrogen atom are often treated as isolated systems. But from time to time, a hydrogen atom will interact with electromagnetic radiation and go to an excited state.
Another reason no system can be truly isolated is that even in interstellar space, there is the 2.7 K background blackbody radiation left over from the Big Bang. This heat permeates every physical body in the Universe.
http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/browse%3Fs%3Dc%26p%3D80
The principle that absolute angular momentum is a property that cannot be created or destroyed but can only be transferred from one physical system to another through the agency of a net torque on the system. As a consequence, the absolute angular momentum of an isolated physical system remains constant. The principle of conservation of angular momentum can be derived from Newton's second law of motion.
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_angular_momentum
Since everything came from the Big Bang, everything would be spinning in the same direction, right? Why are there several planets that rotate backwards (in relation to Earth & most other Sol planets)?
Also, I don't get that the reason that "no system can truly be closed" is because of the Big Bang. Huh? So what there's energy left over. It exists in the same system, right?
Um, and you're not talking sudden sharp changes, anyways. The changes - morphological - are very long term and full of tiny increments. The assumption that organs appear instantaneous in what might be termed 'modern form' is a major mistake, but a sadly common one.
No-no-no. I'm saying that it has to be instantaneous because otherwise it's not advantageous for the organism, and is not carried; or, if it becomes a liability, then it's end of the gene pool. Right? Unless every single "tiny increment" was beneficial and/or the organism with a liability was able to survive until his code changed?
NB: a tail that was disadvantageous would be culled before developing into a full form (so to speak).
Uhm, no. It couldn't, that's what I was saying. None. Nada. It can only react.
The tail is not culled; you're missing the trees for the forest. The creatures that don't have necessary parts/or have parts that are liabilities die out! And the ones that are left...have different code. And unless the code miraculously mutates back to the original form, or a part of the un-modified species was spared, that's the last of that line of code.
If (speaking theoretically) we descended from something w/a tail, that system is fully in-place, operating, and beneficial. Why did it go away? The only way for a system to cease to be a part of self-recreating organisms is for it to stop being advantageous, and to become a liability, right? How does that happen? "natural selection" aka "survival of the fittest"..the environment changes.. which means the affected line dies out!![/i] You don't have a tail because it (for some reason) is not beneficial any more...and your ancestors that didn't get the change died out? There's still monkeys out there. Unless you're saying that a certain group of monkeys decided to not use their tails so much that they ceased to be advantageous and became a liability, while the others stayed in the trees. The only explaination I can think of is a disease that made them not able to use their tails... but that'd make them less fit and less able to survive.
You're making the classic mistake, I think, of thinking that something that is kept as advantageous, is the only 'design' (in physical terms, i.e. body design) that can possibly arise with that benefit.
And the rest of the mutation's effects just hang around in limbo, until they are incorporated into a system bigger than themselves that is for the organism's benefit? I'd have thought that 'junk' code hanging around was a rather bad thing... it sure messes FRED up.
Of course, this is assuming you're dealing with emerging systems & species (macroevolution.)
Microevolution within an existing, complex system :nervous: designed for survival :nervous: can occur, and when the problem that requires the mutation goes away, sometimes you get your code back, because of the variables :nervous: built into :nervous: the system.
Anyways, I'm starting to get tired here... Been up for awhile; I'll come back and read more later.
-
Bah. i'm at work.
2nd law; http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF000
big bang is not related to evolution. I'd normally take the time to check & answer anyways but, as I said, i'm quite busy working justnow.
Ok, quoty bits.
No-no-no. I'm saying that it has to be instantaneous because otherwise it's not advantageous for the organism, and is not carried; or, if it becomes a liability, then it's end of the gene pool. Right? Unless every single "tiny increment" was beneficial and/or the organism with a liability was able to survive until his code changed?
The vast majority (and I mean vast) of mutations are either intangible or at most of a very minor disadvantage which has no impact on survivability or reproductive prospects. i'm not sure what your point is here; you seem to be suggesting something akin to the classic 'eye' puzzle, but that was something solved ages ago.
Uhm, no. It couldn't, that's what I was saying.
Why not?
Think of culled vestigal limbs in whales.
The tail is not culled; you're missing the trees for the forest. The creatures that don't have necessary parts/or have parts that are liabilities die out! And the ones that are left...have different code. And unless the code miraculously mutates back to the original form, or a part of the un-modified species was spared, that's the last of that line of code.
If (speaking theoretically) we descended from something w/a tail, that system is fully in-place, operating, and beneficial. Why did it go away? The only way for a system to cease to be a part of self-recreating organisms is for it to stop being advantageous, and to become a liability, right? How does that happen? "natural selection" aka "survival of the fittest"..the environment changes.. which means the affected line dies out!![/i] You don't have a tail because it (for some reason) is not beneficial any more...and your ancestors that didn't get the change died out? There's still monkeys out there. Unless you're saying that a certain group of monkeys decided to not use their tails so much that they ceased to be advantageous and became a liability, while the others stayed in the trees. The only explaination I can think of is a disease that made them not able to use their tails... but that'd make them less fit and less able to survive.
Eh? I have no idea what you are on about. you do realise that one of the primary advantages of morphological change can be adapting to new environmental niches? Things like a tail, for a ground ape, are simply a liability. Let's say we have a tailed ape (actually, I'm not sure if monkeys evolved tails as a consequence of moving up to the trees rather than down, i'll have to check). Lets say it moves to the ground because there is more food there. Ok? now, over time, these apes with smaller tails - smaller tail genes - will have an advantage in this new environment due to their smaller tails, and the small-tail propensity will carry across generations till it vanishes.
I think - because i don't really see the logic you're using here - that you're forgetting competition as a driving factor. Animals are constantly competing for dominance over others, and that can lead to environmental changes aside from those caused by 'natural' effects like, say drought or fire.
For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.
Also, remember evolution is a divergent process; it entails splits in the familial tree, not a 'line' between species. This is why we have, say, humans and gorillas as sharing some common (distant) ancestor yet entirely different environments and physical characteristics.
And the rest of the mutation's effects just hang around in limbo, until they are incorporated into a system bigger than themselves that is for the organism's benefit? I'd have thought that 'junk' code hanging around was a rather bad thing... it sure messes FRED up.
Of course, this is assuming you're dealing with emerging systems & species (macroevolution.)
Microevolution within an existing, complex system designed for survival can occur, and when the problem that requires the mutation goes away, sometimes you get your code back, because of the variables built into the system.
Anyways, I'm starting to get tired here... Been up for awhile; I'll come back and read more later.
Vast chunks of DNA are considered junk (or at least have no apparent purpose) IIRC. You seem to be making the classic mistake that evolution implies perfection of some sort. So yes, mutational effects - even if expressed - can hang about 'in limbo'. Remember that genes fall into dominant and recessive categories, as well.
EDIT;
A lot of DNA actually has no function; http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html
-
Since everything came from the Big Bang, everything would be spinning in the same direction, right?
Wrong.
Why are there several planets that rotate backwards (in relation to Earth & most other Sol planets)?
The Big Bang did not create the Solar system. The Big Bang was over 12 billion years ago whilst the solar system is around 4-5 billion years old. The rotation of the planets has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang and everything to do with accretion and tidal forces.
Also, I don't get that the reason that "no system can truly be closed" is because of the Big Bang. Huh? So what there's energy left over. It exists in the same system, right?
BUt you will admit that Earth is obviously not a closed system and that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is therefore completely inconsequential to this discussion of evolution right?
If (speaking theoretically) we descended from something w/a tail, that system is fully in-place, operating, and beneficial. Why did it go away? The only way for a system to cease to be a part of self-recreating organisms is for it to stop being advantageous, and to become a liability, right? How does that happen? "natural selection" aka "survival of the fittest"..the environment changes.. which means the affected line dies out!![/i] You don't have a tail because it (for some reason) is not beneficial any more...and your ancestors that didn't get the change died out? There's still monkeys out there. Unless you're saying that a certain group of monkeys decided to not use their tails so much that they ceased to be advantageous and became a liability, while the others stayed in the trees. The only explaination I can think of is a disease that made them not able to use their tails... but that'd make them less fit and less able to survive.
Cart before the horse.
Let me ask you this. What use would a tail be to an ape? Monkeys can use them to hang from trees and stuff but there's no way a tail could do that for a great ape without significant evolutionary changes. We all weigh too much for that.
You act like a tail is a great thing to have but remember that a tail isn't free. It takes energy to grow it and energy to power it. A mutation who had a smaller tail wouldn't have to pay those energy costs and would be rewarded for his shorter tail by either having his body able to spend that energy elsewhere or simply by not needing as much energy in the first place. In addition not having a tail means that you can't get cancer of the tail or any other tail diseases. You can't be grabbed by the tail by a predator or get it caught somewhere and have it slow down your escape.
Now weigh that against the evolutionary arguments in favour of having a tail and you'll see that there's not much reason for having one once you get too heavy to hang from it.
Of course, this is assuming you're dealing with emerging systems & species (macroevolution.)
Microevolution
[ SNIP ]
No difference whatsoever between the two. At least not in the way you're trying to use them.
Macroevolution = Evolution creationists can deny
Microevolution = Evolution so bloody obvious that even the most close-minded creationist can't deny it exists.
So in order to continue denying that evolution exists they've created a false distinction between the two. There isn't one. Macroevolution is the same damned thing given a little longer. Look at the list of observed instances of speciation in fruit flys as proof that even within the false boundrys for Macroevolution creationists have set there are cases which are undeniably cases of macroevolution.
-
Evolution is flukey, Look at the Daddy long legs- Most powerful poison in the animal kingdom.......
But no teeth,
Source-Ricky Gervais stand up show-Animals.
-
Offhand, on the big bang thing; there's also other considerations in movement anyways, like magnetism/gravity.
-
Realllyy :eek2:
-
For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.
Earliest known primates had tails. Tail is a complex system and once lost is very unlikely to pop up again, especially in similar form, so it's more propable that ancestors of apes lost them at some point.
-
For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.
Earliest known primates had tails. Tail is a complex system and once lost is very unlikely to pop up again, especially in similar form, so it's more propable that ancestors of apes lost them at some point.
Ah, cheers. i'll need to look up the primate evolution stuff when I'm home tonight :)
-
For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.
Earliest known primates had tails. Tail is a complex system and once lost is very unlikely to pop up again, especially in similar form, so it's more propable that ancestors of apes lost them at some point.
Post/PM some links if you find something really good, right mate?
Ah, cheers. i'll need to look up the primate evolution stuff when I'm home tonight :)
-
For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.
Earliest known primates had tails. Tail is a complex system and once lost is very unlikely to pop up again, especially in similar form, so it's more propable that ancestors of apes lost them at some point.
technically humans still have "tails" albeit in the form of the coccyx, right at the end of the spinal column
even though it serves no real purpose, it's there anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx
-
For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.
Earliest known primates had tails. Tail is a complex system and once lost is very unlikely to pop up again, especially in similar form, so it's more propable that ancestors of apes lost them at some point.
technically humans still have "tails" albeit in the form of the coccyx, right at the end of the spinal column
even though it serves no real purpose, it's there anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx
Yeah, and the rest of the apes have remnants of tails or very short tails too. Several vertebrae been lost, though, and most ape tails consist of only 3-6 vertebrae. Vestigial remnants that serve different purposes nowadays.
-
Evolution is flukey, Look at the Daddy long legs- Most powerful poison in the animal kingdom.......
But no teeth,
Source-Ricky Gervais stand up show-Animals.
I think that's a myth that just survives through repetition.
-
Eat one then :d
-
Eat one then :d
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/longlegs.htm
There are poisonous birds (several New Guinean species) and venomous mammals (shrews and several other insectivorae, platypus) which are far more dangerous.
-
I see that this has already been brought up before, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Has anyone gotten a workaround for that?
Whats to work around? Thermodynamics is about heat. Only someone that has no idea how evolution works would say thermodynamics is a problem for it. No surprise that Creationists think its a good argument.
BTW, how do complex systems evolve from simple ones? Okay, this means assuming we're talking about more than "microevolution" or small change within an existing, complex system.
ALL there is "microevolution". There is no other process. Everything that has ever evolved has just been a modified version of whatever its ancesters were.
eg You can scramble a few table values in FS and get some interesting results, maybe to your benefit, but that's not making a whole new game from nothing.
And just like a "tornado in a junkyard", Evolution doesnt work anything like that.
OK, I think the theory is that "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection" produces those results over long periods of time. But, for that to work on a complex system, you must have intelligent input. Because any additional organ, for example, is more likely to become a liability than an asset in a fight for survival unless it >poof!< evolved instantaneously.
No "poof" is not what evolution does, thats Intelligent Design and Creationism you're talking about.
Take for example the eye. There are many precursurs to the human eye, and we still see many of them about in nature today. Some animals eyes are just light sensitive membranes.
ie, If you just crawled out of the water, and you're dragging your tail behind you, that'd make you an easy lunch. But you'd never make it out of the water because while you were evolving your legs, that made you a snack for a gator. Oh, wait a minute. That's right. I forgot.
1. EVOLUTION IS NOT LIKE X-MEN :rolleyes:
2. Populations evolve not individuals .
3. You are saying this creature shouldnt exist:
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/6378/smeegle1mc.jpg
The new theory is that the cows started on land and evolved into whales. Right.
No it isnt. This is what you are calling a "cow":
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/cow-whale.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1550000/images/_1553008_newwhale300.jpg
Okay, and what makes you think the gene code for the legs (or tail, if you're going into the water) would stay there for more than a few generations? Unless it proved of some benefit to the organism (and for that it'd have to function to some degree of efficiency) it'd be dropped off. Like that tail you didn't need when you tripped over something on the way out the door. I've always wondered about that one.
It doesnt matter if an adaptation isnt 100% beneficial, just so long as it increases reproductive success.
The only way around that is to say that various mutations happened to be beneficial for a certain situation, and happened to have evolved for no reason whatsoever, and had been ready and in-place when something happened to necessitate their existence.
Only when you understand that evolution doesnt work like X-Men and that individuals dont evolve you wont understand any of this.
[/quote]
-
Also, the second law of Thermodynamics assumes a single phase-space for the system to develop under.
The DNA of a Human IS simpler than the DNA of a Frog. It's called the Space Elevator theory. A Frog's DNA holds thousands of little 'instructions' for what chemical is best for dealing with things like 'Cold water', 'Salty Water' etc. Human's do it another way. We took a lot longer to evolve, by creating a self-regulating system, which is far far more complex. But now that the complex system has evolved, it is far less effort to stay there.
It's like asking why Cavemen didn't have TV and why aren't we hitting each other over the head with clubs now (ok, ok, yes, in some places we are, but that's beside the point :p), after all, technology has got more complex, not less.
-
There's an analogy I always liked about tornado and a junkyard.
Let's say a tornado hits a junkyard and builds a 747. Now let's say it hits a junkyard and builds...a junk pile. Ok?
Now, what do you think the odds of either are?
Identical.
Yup. Identical. Why? Because each of those combinations of atoms is as likely as the other.
And the thing about this analogy is, it applies very well to one of the main creationist arguement. The arguement of design, essentially states that everything that exists, is the only thing that could ever exist, and the only way it could ever exist, and then tries to apply that as a rule of evolution - something which is really running contrary to what we expect from evolutionary theory. And, another little quirk is, this assumption only makes sense from a human point of view (ala the 747 vs junk); so it's actually also presumptious of Gods design (which, is actually rather flawed in many occasions).
-
There's an analogy I always liked about tornado and a junkyard.
Let's say a tornado hits a junkyard and builds a 747. Now let's say it hits a junkyard and builds...a junk pile. Ok?
Now, what do you think the odds of either are?
Identical.
up. Identical. Why? Because each of those combinations of atoms is as likely as the other.
And the thing about this analogy is, it applies very well to one of the main creationist arguement. The arguement of design, essentially states that everything that exists, is the only thing that could ever exist, and the only way it could ever exist, and then tries to apply that as a rule of evolution - something which is really running contrary to what we expect from evolutionary theory. And, another little quirk is, this assumption only makes sense from a human point of view (ala the 747 vs junk); so it's actually also presumptious of Gods design (which, is actually rather flawed in many occasions).
Of course, the short answer to the Tornado in a Junkyard argument is -- "STRAWMAN!"
I dont understand your responce to it. The chances that the numbers 1234567 will come up in a lottery draw isnt the same as it coming up as all different numbers, even though I know some people that will put on thier big smart ass glasses on and say 'well actually its exactly the same'.
-
Of course, the short answer to the Tornado in a Junkyard argument is -- "STRAWMAN!"
I dont understand your responce to it. The chances that the numbers 1234567 will come up in a lottery draw isnt the same as it coming up as all different numbers, even though I know some people that will put on thier big smart ass glasses on and say 'well actually its exactly the same'.
Well the point is that the chances are identical, it's just that the human mind assigns additional 'value' on top of particular scenarios which skew our perception.
-
It's our love of Stories. You are far more likely to see a headline saying 'Consecutive Lottery Numbers Drawn!' than 'Lottery Numbers Had Nothing In Common!'.
That's why we attach the significance.
-
Of course what creationists fail to realise is that life is a logical and necessary condition for the furthering of entropy.
By 'ordering' materials life enhances entropy in the universe.
-
Of course, the short answer to the Tornado in a Junkyard argument is -- "STRAWMAN!"
I dont understand your responce to it. The chances that the numbers 1234567 will come up in a lottery draw isnt the same as it coming up as all different numbers, even though I know some people that will put on thier big smart ass glasses on and say 'well actually its exactly the same'.
Well the point is that the chances are identical, it's just that the human mind assigns additional 'value' on top of particular scenarios which skew our perception.
The point is that the tornado in a junkyard is a strawman, that is not how evolution works. To respond to it with the argument that the chances of throwing a pile of junk around and it forming itself into a complex machine rather than a junk pile being exactly the same just muddies the waters. Its one of the easiest Creationist caricatures to refute, Evolution simply doesnt work that way. Dont try and be smart.
Ed
-
I think you've missed the point of Aldo's post. He isn't refuting the common Creationist argument that evolution is random. He's refuting specified complexity which is a main ID argument based on the chance that evolution could result in humankind evolving. What specified complexity misses is that although the chance of humankind evolving is small the chance of something evolving is virtually a certainty.
Creationists like to do their calculations pretending that humankind was the only possible outcome for evolution and it's simply not true.
-
I think you've missed the point of Aldo's post. He isn't refuting the common Creationist argument that evolution is random. He's refuting specified complexity which is a main ID argument based on the chance that evolution could result in humankind evolving. What specified complexity misses is that although the chance of humankind evolving is small the chance of something evolving is virtually a certainty.
Creationists like to do their calculations pretending that humankind was the only possible outcome for evolution and it's simply not true.
Which might be a good point if he wasnt trying to use their analogy of a tornado in a junkyard. Its just not the same in any respect. Life just doesnt work that way, and a 747 could never be formed out of junk that got throw around by a tornado. Thats all that really needs to be said about it.
-
Actually, the comment was made by an Astronmer, Hoyle iirc, with regards of the formation of Proteins out of Amino Acids, and in pointing out that the odds of a group of Amino Acids forming and folding into a coherent 200-molecule protein string purely by accident was about the same chance as a Tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747, and that the odds of DNA just happening to form at the same time is minute. Therefore there must be some missing aspect of the formation of complex life that we still haven't found.
That said, 'Don't know' and 'God' should not be treated as the same thing ;)
-
yes, "Don't Know" implies uncertainty
"God" implies unwillingness/inability to think
-
That said, 'Don't know' and 'God' should not be treated as the same thing ;)
Unless you're an advocate of Intelligent Design in which case "I don't know" means God did it regardless of whether or not someone else is saying "but I do know"
-
Actually, the comment was made by an Astronmer, Hoyle iirc, with regards of the formation of Proteins out of Amino Acids, and in pointing out that the odds of a group of Amino Acids forming and folding into a coherent 200-molecule protein string purely by accident was about the same chance as a Tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747, and that the odds of DNA just happening to form at the same time is minute. Therefore there must be some missing aspect of the formation of complex life that we still haven't found.
That said, 'Don't know' and 'God' should not be treated as the same thing ;)
Hmm.... fortunately, I was just reading about this last night. Hoyle - being an astronomer - failed to grasp that abiogenesis theory does not require life just forming out of chemicals (that's not been a theory since 1803), but the formation of stuff like proteins and polymers in a sort of evolutionary process into life. I.e. the odds of the individual steps happening, not the odds of them all in sequence.
Of course, it's a common thing for ID/creationism to cite critical comments (often out of context or with bits cut out, too, like I noted in that textbook thread) from Phd holders, etc, who actually work in completely different fields to those covering evolutionary theory but can be reliably called 'doctor'. The problem is, of course, that the ordinary bloke in the street may not grasp that Einstein wouldn't know all that much more if anything about biology than than them.
And this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) was what I was reading :D
-
Einstein himself made mistakes, and one of his self proclaimed mistakes may turn out to be the 'answer' that cosmologists have been looking for for several decades, science is an ironic place ;)
-
Einstein himself made mistakes, and one of his self proclaimed mistakes may turn out to be the 'answer' that cosmologists have been looking for for several decades, science is an ironic place ;)
Well not yet, because we're dealing with physics and those guys seem to argue, debate, discuss and circlejerk a lot. They're a fine and revolutionary lot but damn it's hard to know just what qualifies as good theoretical physics theory because they have so many of them.
-
Indeed, the two biggest dangers to science are (1) Growing Egos to the point of sticking to obviously flawed theories (always a problem, but more so now I think) and (2) Commercialisation.
Though, admittedly, it's highly likely that (2) led to (1).
-
Actually, the comment was made by an Astronmer, Hoyle iirc, with regards of the formation of Proteins out of Amino Acids, and in pointing out that the odds of a group of Amino Acids forming and folding into a coherent 200-molecule protein string purely by accident was about the same chance as a Tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747, and that the odds of DNA just happening to form at the same time is minute. Therefore there must be some missing aspect of the formation of complex life that we still haven't found
It doesnt matter who said it originally, clearly Hoyle didnt know what he was talking about either and being an Astronmer not a biologist probably has something to do with that.
-
Penguins evolved from lettuce, Jesus said so !!
"And lo the lettuce did furl up its leaves,
And nay mine eyes deceiveth me,
Whence Lo the leaves did unfurl, and the noblest of Gruds creatures,
The might snow bird-Penguin did cometh forth"
11:27
Book of Nigel,
Ridiculous Testament
-
Actually, the comment was made by an Astronmer, Hoyle iirc, with regards of the formation of Proteins out of Amino Acids, and in pointing out that the odds of a group of Amino Acids forming and folding into a coherent 200-molecule protein string purely by accident was about the same chance as a Tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747, and that the odds of DNA just happening to form at the same time is minute. Therefore there must be some missing aspect of the formation of complex life that we still haven't found
It doesnt matter who said it originally, clearly Hoyle didnt know what he was talking about either and being an Astronmer not a biologist probably has something to do with that.
Yes, we'd already established that :)
-
This is m.
A thought just occurred to me, one that's actually quite fundemental to this argument and yet totally unrelated to science. Intelligent Design is invalid from a religious standpoint, provided one thinks it through.
If ID is in fact true, that is fundemental, irrefutable proof of God. But proof denies faith. Without faith, organized religion and God Himself are nothing. We have never been promised proof of His existance. Indeed, He wishes us to take Him upon faith alone, without proof. Faith is what will in the end save you. Faith is what you are asked to have; no more, no less.
Intelligent Design denies faith. And in denying faith, you deny God.
Who is the greater assault upon Christanity now?
"Oh, I hadn't thought of that," God says, and then vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says ngtm1r, then goes on to prove that white is black and gets himself killed at the next pedestrian crossing.
:drevil:
I didn't think it was possible to glean philosophy from Douglas Noel Adams, but apparently ngtm1r has different ideas.
Anyway.
Take for example the eye. There are many precursurs to the human eye, and we still see many of them about in nature today. Some animals eyes are just light sensitive membranes.
Yes, but I believe we have found fossilized insects millions of years older than ourselves, complete with compound eyes, antennae (fully formed), etc?
World Trade Federation? (If you don't get it, stick the initials between a pair of colons and hopefully you will!)
Also...
ANOTHER quote from my good buddy hEDz:
The chances that the numbers 1234567 will come up in a lottery draw isnt the same as it coming up as all different numbers, even though I know some people that will put on thier big smart ass glasses on and say 'well actually its exactly the same'.
Yes but unfortunately no headzline unless someone picks the exact same number (chances of which are a little more than with other combinations, because people would be more inclined to pick a nice 1234567 rather than an ugly 5362417).
HOWEVER:
Darwin's theory would be more like a monkey going to a typewriter (if you'll pardon the cliché) and pounding out EXACTLY 1234567, not any more or less (123456 or 12345678 would not be acceptable).
Chances are beyond slim; they're more like Lindsay Lohan was b4 rehab ( sorry :D ).
Looking forward to your response, which will probably be something like :mad: or more like :headz:
'til then,
m
-
No, actually Evolution would be nothing like that. It would be the monkey becoming able to type out 1 due to a random mutation, then because it's an advantage all it's descendants can also do it. 2000 years later, a far descendant randomly becomes able to type out 2, which once again proves to be an advantage. In between then, several monkeys typed out other numbers, but those were not advantageous so their lineages slowly died out, and not until the number 2 did a change stick.
Now keep doing this until the sequence 1234567, and that's kinda sorta approximating how evolution works. In short, you left out an important part of the evolutionary theory: Selection. Only what works, stays, and it takes place over many many very small steps.
-
I'm afraid, m, you've made the classic mistake of regarding Darwinism as purely by chance. That is entirely, and wholly wrong.
Let me explain. Mutations occur by chance, but selection is deterministic. So let's take your 123456789 etc sequence and evaluate it in the correct manner.
We have 9 random number generators (1-9 values). Now, at each iteration, each generator gives up a random digit - that's a bit like mutation. However, selection also applies; if the first digit is 1, for example, we preserve that value. Likewise, each time we 'hit' a digit, it is preserved for future 'generations'. If you model this in a simple program, you will find it takes remarkably few generations to gain the sequence. Dawkins addressed exactly this question in The Blind Watchmaker, as well as providing a visual method for illustrating evolving shape.
(this is just re-iterating what Shade said)
Unfortunately, this indicates you (m) have a fundamental misunderstanding of both Darwins theory and the resulting evolutionary science. I'd suggest reading up from a few good reputable and unbiased sites about the mechanics of mutation and selection.
also, RE: fossilized insect eyes, part of evolutionary theory expects convergent or parallel evolution of well suited organs; for example, it's expected & predicted in evolutionary science that the basic eye organ will have evolved multiple times in history. In fact, I'm not sure what your point is. Also, it's worth noting the variation of eye designs in animals; I believe, as an example, the octopus 'eye' has a totally different structure but simlar if not identical function to the basic mammal eye. The human (etc) eye, incidentally, is a good arguement against intelligent design because we have a bundle of nerves inside that effectively obstruct vision, and create a blind spot due to where they pass into the optic nerve.
EDIT; 1st post? Man, I admire your courage.
-
Ahhh, my first non- :v: -created victims.
:snipe:
You have a problem.
The monkey typed "1" and then got bored and left the typewriter.
Unfortunately "1" was only part of the necessary "1234567" for the first living cell to survive.
"1" was discarded by nature, which didn't realize that it was necessary for "1234567"
You see, my friend, typing "1" would be like making an ML-16 laser with no ship to fire it. The Terrans discard the ML-16, then the Vasudans build a canopy for a cockpit (monkey types "2"). Since it is a Vasudan canopy it does not benefit the mindless Terrans. The Terrans discard the Vasudan canopy.
Eventually, perhaps, the Terrans grow brains and figure out that the Vasudans and Terrans have both been building things that, put together, can become an Apollo spacecraft. After much rejoicing the Terrans take the Apollo on a flight to test it out.
Unfortunately the Shivans (UV light) come along and wipe out the hapless Apollo with its useless cannon.
The Terrans build the Avenger and steal shield technology.
The Terrans meet the Lucifer.
Miraculously the Terrans survive and destroy the Lucifer.
You know how the story goes from there.
...
...
...
Oh frick! No miracles allowed! Earth is destroyed and the Terrans are no more! All is lost! Monkeys must figure out how to type 3, 7, 31, 127, all the way to the 43rd Mersenne prime with no numbers in between! This results in the Colossus, which is destroyed by the Sathanas! Monkeys must learn English and type up War and Peace before the Shivans destroy Capella! All is lost!
THE END
May I try and predict a response?
:hopping:
Oh, and Aldo_14?
The octopus eye was destroyed by the Shivans before the Terrans came into existence. It did, however, leave a message regarding the Shivan weakness and referring to them as "The Destroyers".
...
Oh, right! The octopus eye can't write and tell future species about the weakness! The Terrans don't get the message!
AIIIE!
By the way, mutations have never added information. Therefore monkeys are limited to forever hitting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 0. They can never type up War and Peace without learning English (just thought I'd explain a little). Capella is destroyed.
-
what on earth are you on about? Seriously.
If this is supposed to be some sort of response, it is painfully obvious you lack even a basic comprehension of evolutionary selection theory.
-
Ah, I see. I suspected you were a troll after reading your first post, but gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now the doubt is gone. No point answering any further posts from this person, he will just keep going on with the same gobbletygook and false information. Let him live his life in ignorance while we have our little laugh at his expense.
-
I didn't think it was possible to glean philosophy from Douglas Noel Adams, but apparently ngtm1r has different ideas.
Well sure you can, he just made it amusing. Heres brilliant analogy of his about the logic of Creationists:
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’"
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
Is there an Artificial God?
Douglas Adams' speech at Digital Biota 2, Cambridge U.K.
September 1998
Take for example the eye. There are many precursurs to the human eye, and we still see many of them about in nature today. Some animals eyes are just light sensitive membranes.
Yes, but I believe we have found fossilized insects millions of years older than ourselves, complete with compound eyes, antennae (fully formed), etc?
So what? And why do you put in brackets "fully formed"? Of course they will be fully formed. I think youve been told that evolution says that creatures evolve half an eye, or half a leg. Sorry, evolution doesnt say anything of the kind.
HOWEVER:
Darwin's theory would be more like a monkey going to a typewriter (if you'll pardon the cliché) and pounding out EXACTLY 1234567, not any more or less (123456 or 12345678 would not be acceptable).
No it isnt. Why would you think that? Fully formed features or new species didnt just form overnight. Why cant you argue against the actual theory, instead of misrepresenting it?
By the way, mutations have never added information.
Creationists have been saying that for decades and decades. You can show them how mutations add information, they just say, no no thats not information. They have never once defined information in any meaningfull way, because if they did they would be proven wrong. Its really amusing when guys like Dembski talks about his "Law of Conservation of Information", and comes out with all of these complicated equations yet doesnt even define what his terms even mean!
Ed
-
"Oh, I hadn't thought of that," God says, and then vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says ngtm1r, then goes on to prove that white is black and gets himself killed at the next pedestrian crossing.
I didn't think it was possible to glean philosophy from Douglas Noel Adams, but apparently ngtm1r has different ideas.
It may surprise you, but that was independantly duplicated. I've never read that bit. More to the point, this makes for a pretty good case for ad hominem; the sources of one's ideas is totally irrevelant. The substance, however, is what is germane to the discussion.
So, can you argue the argument, or is that too difficult?
-
what on earth are you on about? Seriously.
My 1st post was just an answer to a few things in the thread, and my second was an attempt at comparing the odds of natural selection to the FS storyline.
If you want a response, here:
Response to Shade:
The monkey would not become able to type "1" because mutations never add information. (Unless you can offer me an example of it occurring; I've never seen an example of this.) However mutations do subtract information (Shivans destroying the Apollo), and therefore "1" would be destroyed.
In short, you might have assumed no negative occurances in the entire process, which is not the case in nature. Mutations are almost always harmful, rarely neutral, and extremely rarely benificial. For example, bugs becoming resistance to pesticide due to mutations is beneficial, but it comes as a result of their bodies losing the ability to turn the chemicals into poison. If the process keeps going, they keep losing information, and they never gain the information to become resistant to the sledgehammer. :hammer:
Response to hEDz:
So what? And why do you put in brackets "fully formed"? Of course they will be fully formed. I think youve been told that evolution says that creatures evolve half an eye, or half a leg. Sorry, evolution doesnt say anything of the kind.
Because we've never found a fossil with partially formed antennae (though we have caused malformed fruit fly antennae in labs!).
BTW ngtm1r, I paraphrased Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; and the source of the "proof destroys faith" logic is from Hebrews 11:6 which says that without faith it is impossible to please God, not it is impossible for God to exist.
In response to aldo_14,
At least you seem to use scientific explanations. (I personally don't like the monkey-typewriter illustration.) The eye's "blinding" optic nerve is a channel to the brain, without which we couldn't see. (But you probably already knew that.) That is why we have two eyes. You could say that we evolved the other eye in order to compensate, but the problem woud be how the first eye got there.
Darwin's idea of an eye evolving from light-sensitive membranes would not work; you would need an optic nerve to translate the signals to be there at the same time. Either the nerve or the membranes would be useless without the other, so they would both have to evolve simultaneously, which would hardly seem like an accident to me.
By the way, you both mentioned that Evolution is not just random mutations. Are you insinuating a purpose behind the chance?
The "purpose" could, I suppose, be the greater benefit to the organism, but then why have we lost our muscles? I mean, it's a shame that a chimpanzee is proportionally several times stronger than us, as are all monkey-type creatures.
Anyway, I think that it's suspicious that the greatest all-time proofs of evolution (peppered moths, Haeckel's embryos, Lucy's knee, not to mention all the ape-men) were invalidated, yet continue to be used.
It seems they are trying to find more proofs of evolution, but in the meantime, they resort to using frauds and "unproofs" to prove evolution. The very animal mentioned in the beginning of this thread is compared to the Archaeopteryx, which is heralded as proof because it has claws, as does the baby hoatzin in South America. So? If you found a bird with just the beginnings of claws, that might be something, but I am dubious regarding "proofs", just because of the fact that there have been so many fakes.
The fossil that they found (in the Arctic, of all places) is said to be a transitional form between fish and land animals because of its similar "arm" structure. That brings into mind a few questions (perhaps you can answer them): If the fish had such limited capacity as a land animal, then why would it wander onto the land instead of staying in the water? Did it breath air? If so, how did it evolve lungs?
Anyway, I can't see how the initial mutation would be immediately beneficial, so why would it keep the extra weight? Perhaps the fish could swim better with it, but how would that benefit it on land? And how exactly did it evolve the extra bones on both fins? Is evolution always symmetrical?
By the way, I am a mutant myself, and it isn't exactly beneficial; it makes me about 50% more likely to get an infection of the urinary tract. And it didn't add information, it just duplicated what was already there. My kids probably won't get the same mutation. And no, it's not symmetrical; it only happened on one side.
So no, I'm not a troll (I just act like one sometimes; maybe I have MPD ;7 ). I'm a mutant, :jaw: but my descendants will not be X-men :sigh: . I am m.
-
"For example, bugs becoming resistance to pesticide due to mutations is beneficial, but it comes as a result of their bodies losing the ability to turn the chemicals into poison."
WHAT?! :wtf:
ok, it is a well documented fact that gene replication can copy a segment of DNA, you have therefore doubleded that segment in the genome, then other transcription errors can then change the copy into anything it can, there you have mutation proccesses adding information.
the reason we have two eyes is not because we developed one then the other, but because at some extreemly early point in vertibraite evolution bylateral sysmitry was developed, mutations that effect body plan are likely to effect both halfs in the exact same way (not that it's imposable for there to be diferences, but there is a mecanism for the changes to be effected on both halves)
-
ok, it is a well documented fact that gene replication can copy a segment of DNA, you have therefore doubleded that segment in the genome, then other transcription errors can then change the copy into anything it can, there you have mutation proccesses adding information.
Except that the transcription errors are limited to the "Backspace" Key, meaning that you would get a hand (extra!!) with all thumbs :( .
the reason we have two eyes is not because we developed one then the other, but because at some extreemly early point in vertibraite evolution bylateral sysmitry was developed, mutations that effect body plan are likely to effect both halfs in the exact same way (not that it's imposable for there to be diferences, but there is a mecanism for the changes to be effected on both halves)
Is that why I have my mutation on only one side of my body? :eek2:
-
In response to aldo_14,
At least you seem to use scientific explanations. (I personally don't like the monkey-typewriter illustration.) The eye's "blinding" optic nerve is a channel to the brain, without which we couldn't see. (But you probably already knew that.) That is why we have two eyes. You could say that we evolved the other eye in order to compensate, but the problem woud be how the first eye got there.
The evolution of the eye from a light sensitive patch has already been hypothesized.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html)
Also, the obvious note to make about the optic nerve is that it's perfectly possible to have the sensory nerves on the exterior of the eyeball. The octopus, in fact, doesn't lose any visual perception due to the positioning of these information-carrying cells. So it's 'better designed'.
also, on bilateral symmetry; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB751.html
By the way, you both mentioned that Evolution is not just random mutations. Are you insinuating a purpose behind the chance?
no. I should have made it explicitly clear earlier that selection is a deterministic process - the blind watchmaker.
The "purpose" could, I suppose, be the greater benefit to the organism, but then why have we lost our muscles? I mean, it's a shame that a chimpanzee is proportionally several times stronger than us, as are all monkey-type creatures.
I would guess a combination of tool use ending a great deal of the survival (selection) benefit, combined with the action of sexual selection. However, it's worth noting our evolutionary ancestors would still be tremendously strong; even the early homo sapiens would be living in an environment that demanded the strength and stamina of an olympic athlete.
(it's also worth observing that chimpanzees are themselves evolved and specialised animals with a selection pressure favouring things such as muscles and mobility)
The fossil that they found (in the Arctic, of all places) is said to be a transitional form between fish and land animals because of its similar "arm" structure. That brings into mind a few questions (perhaps you can answer them): If the fish had such limited capacity as a land animal, then why would it wander onto the land instead of staying in the water? Did it breath air? If so, how did it evolve lungs?
That's rather simple; evading predation, opening new food sources. You're forgetting the value of occupying an environmental niche.
Evolution of lungs... well, mutations leading to an ability to breathe amphibiously would clearly convey an advantage in this situation and thus be selected. Now, it seems you've selectively determined what is a proof and then set out to characterise it as false; FYI the archeopteryx is defined by more than 'claws'; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
I'd like you to provide an unbiased 'invalidation' to back up your statement.
Anyway, I can't see how the initial mutation would be immediately beneficial, so why would it keep the extra weight? Perhaps the fish could swim better with it, but how would that benefit it on land? And how exactly did it evolve the extra bones on both fins? Is evolution always symmetrical?
See symmetricity link before. And I answered this above.
By the way, I am a mutant myself, and it isn't exactly beneficial; it makes me about 50% more likely to get an infection of the urinary tract. And it didn't add information, it just duplicated what was already there. My kids probably won't get the same mutation. And no, it's not symmetrical; it only happened on one side.
Then you are no doubt aware that the vast majority of mutations are either negative or have no significant survival advantage, which is an important concept in understanding selection processes. I'm not quite sure why you bring this up, actually.
-
Is that why I have my mutation on only one side of my body? :eek2:
What organ is the mutation on, and is that organ duplicated and symmetrical. Don't confuse an exterior bliateral symmetry for interior. Also, Bob mentioned 'body plan'.
EDIT;
Haeckels embryos; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html
Lucys knee; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC003.html
Peppered moths; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
-
Hm, you surprise me. You might not be a troll afterall, given your last post not containing so many annoying colour codes and your laying off the weirdness somewhat. So, onwards. For now.
I personally don't like the monkey-typewriter illustration
Funny then that it was you who brought it up in your first post, isn't it? And that it is you who continues to use utterly obscure allegories. I simply mirrored your post to point out how you had misrepresented evolution. I never claimed mutation added information - I can't say if it does or not. But it doesn't need to. It changes it. That's what mutation is, alteration, not creation.
you might have assumed no negative occurances in the entire process, which is not the case in nature. Mutations are almost always harmful, rarely neutral, and extremely rarely benificial
I did, in fact, not assume that at all. If you read my post carefully, you might notice that I in fact allow for 2000 years of harmful mutations that result in death before the next positive one. The way it works is quite simple actually, the negative mutations result in reduced ability to survive, whereas the positive ones do the opposite. Given thousands of years, this means positive mutations are preserved while negative ones die out.
By the way, you both mentioned that Evolution is not just random mutations. Are you insinuating a purpose behind the chance?
No, you misunderstand us. Evolution is most definitely random changes. But it is not one huge random change, it is a lot of very small random changes over a very long time, with only the useful changes surviving to the next generation. The important thing to always remember about evolution is that it is a very slow process with very many steps, with the result 'evaluated' after each step and rewarded with either death or life, depending on the usefulness of the mutation. So there are rules, certainly, but they are simply the rules of nature, the rules of survival.
-
So what? And why do you put in brackets "fully formed"? Of course they will be fully formed. I think youve been told that evolution says that creatures evolve half an eye, or half a leg. Sorry, evolution doesnt say anything of the kind.
Because we've never found a fossil with partially formed antennae (though we have caused malformed fruit fly antennae in labs!).
What did i JUST tell you?
I just told you Evolution doesnt say we should ever expect to find "partially formed" features. Contrary to what Creationists say about ours eye, it didnt just pop fully formed into what it is today. We can even see the precursers still around today. Like I already told you 2 replies ago which you apparently didnt read, some creatures eyes are simply light sensitive membranes. And our eyes are still pretty simple compared to other creatures such as hawks and eagles.
Anyway, I think that it's suspicious that the greatest all-time proofs of evolution (peppered moths,
Peppered moths are a great example of natural selection. Creationists lie about the scientific method of collecting the data, thats the only fraud, and its a Creationist fraud.
Haeckel's embryos,
The only fraud here is the lie Creationists continue to tell about this. Haeckel's principle was correct, we just dont use his inaccurate drawings anymore we use real photographs in the field embryology.
Lucy's knee, not to mention all the ape-men) were invalidated, yet continue to be used
Id bet you dont understand any of these in the same way you didnt understand anything else youve said so far.
By the way, you both mentioned that Evolution is not just random mutations. Are you insinuating a purpose behind the chance?
Mutation is random. Natural selection is not random at all.
Thats why all your ridiculous random analogies are so wrong.
I can't see how the initial mutation would be immediately beneficial, so why would it keep the extra weight? Perhaps the fish could swim better with it, but how would that benefit it on land?
Didnt you already embarrass yourself earlier when you said these creatures couldnt exist?
http://www.opefe.com/images/Smeegle.jpg
-
Didnt you already embarrass yourself earlier when you said these creatures couldnt exist?
http://www.opefe.com/images/Smeegle.jpg
And they like Guiness, too :D
-
Didnt you already embarrass yourself earlier when you said these creatures couldnt exist?
http://www.opefe.com/images/Smeegle.jpg
And they like Guiness, too :D
Its a funny advert :D I only wish it was more accurate in how it depicted commen decent, ah well.
-
Its a funny advert :D I only wish it was more accurate in how it depicted commen decent, ah well.
Weel, I think anyone taking evolution lessons from a Guinness advert probably is going to struggle to get anything more complex than 'ooh, pretty things backwards'. :D
-
Oooh. Newbie who hasn't retreated into the corner, rocking back and forth with his eyes and ears covered and humming "God is Great". Fun.
And the best part is, I've been up all night studying for a Palaeontology exam. You're screwed mate.
The very animal mentioned in the beginning of this thread is compared to the Archaeopteryx, which is heralded as proof because it has claws, as does the baby hoatzin in South America. So? If you found a bird with just the beginnings of claws, that might be something, but I am dubious regarding "proofs", just because of the fact that there have been so many fakes.
Archaeopteryx is defined by more than "claws". Let's run through the barrel of evolutionary fun that is everyone's favorite fossil bird.
- It's got feathers. Undeniable feathers, beautifully preserved by some of the best fossil preserving material in the world. So well preserved, in fact, that microscopic analysis shows the microscopic structure of the wing fibres that could not be faked by nineteenth century technoplogy, and almost certainly couldn;t even be faked that well with modern technology.
- It's got a long, bony but feathered tail that hasn't fused into a pygostyle, unlike like all modern birds.
- All the specimens of A. lithigraphica (the most common species) lack a bony sternum, unlike all modern birds. Interestingly, A. bavarica does have one, which, IMO, should be enough for a new genus, but it's not up to me.
- It's skull-neck join is classic dinosaur (connects in mid rear skull rather than in the bottom of a nice round sealed skull like modern birds)
- It's hands (finally we get to those claws) are also classic dinosaur, just extended, exactly as you'd expect in a transitional form from before they'd fused into a nice neat bird wing.
- It's got a toothy jaw and no sign of a beak.
- It's hip structure is a beautiful example of little theropod hips, nothing like modern bird stuff.
- It's got a reflexed hallux, just like both theropods and birds.
And the kicker is that it's just one in a whole flock of small feathered dinosaurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs) which are helping flesh out the whole dinosaur - bird transition. So argue Archaeopteryx away all you like, chum, you find me one insurmountable obstacle for it to be a bird-dinosaur transitional form (if you'll be so kind as to extend the definition to likely early side branches from the precise line that gave rise to modern birds, which is likjely what Archaeopteryx is, and I'll bust out Sinornithosaurus and you can deal with that little palaeontological treasure.
The fossil that they found (in the Arctic, of all places) is said to be a transitional form between fish and land animals because of its similar "arm" structure. That brings into mind a few questions (perhaps you can answer them): If the fish had such limited capacity as a land animal, then why would it wander onto the land instead of staying in the water? Did it breath air? If so, how did it evolve lungs?
Let's take your questions in the logical order.
Did it breathe air?
Absolutely right there bucko. It, along with pretty much everything that came out of the water around then, had both lungs and gills. Evolution of something that's useful in one form of life but invaluable for another is called exaptation.
How did it evolve lungs?
I love this question, I really do, because it's a beautiful example of evolution. The first lungs were simple sacs with lots of blood pumping around the edges that probably started out as outpocketings of the intestines in fish that would let these fish gulp air. These oxygen sacks evolved two ways - some became lungs, some became swim bladders. So, as a good creationist, you're not thinking too hard at this point, and you think you've got the entire biological community beat because you're thinking "What does a fish need lungs for? It lives in water! I'm so clever." Well genius, there's this special part of water that's technically called the surface, but for you, we'll call it the top. Above the top of the water there is this nice, friendly stuff called air that's just chock full of oxygen. So why does the fish want oxygen from the air when its got gills that'll suck it from the water?
The answer to that question comes from a relatively simple experiment. Take a fish, any fish, as long as it has a swim bladder. Put it in a tank of flowing water and make it swim as fast as it can for a few minutes. You klnow what happpens to it? It'll suffocate. It just can not extract enough oxygen from the water to jheep going at full speed, and full speed is a useful thing to have when you're running from predators. Wouldn't it be useful to have a second method of obtaining oxygen, so you could swim at full speed for longer. Wouldn't it be great if you could just poip up to the surface... sorry, top of the water and take a gulp of air? Wouldn't that be a big advantage? Absolutely it would. And it was. The lobe finned fish who got the lungs rather than the swm bladders were very successful for awhile. But then something rather unfortunate happened - the air started filling up with pterosaurs that were quite adept at flying down and grabbing any fish silly enough to stay close to the top of the water. So the only evolutionary recourse was to sink down a ways, and once you're too far from the surface of the water to make gulping water a possibility, lungs become useless and a swim bladder becomes the greater advantage. So, as fish anyway, the lobe fins mostly died out.
But, there's an appendix to this story. Go on down to south africa and see if you can catch yourself a coelocanth, one of the last remaining lobe fins in the world. Cut the thing open and have a good old feel around. You know what you'll find? A tiny little near useless (for a deep water fish) pair of lungs. True story. It happened to a fish of a friend of mine.
If the fish had such limited capacity as a land animal, then why would it wander onto the land instead of staying in the water?
Because it's a damned good idea to get out of the water to do one thing - reproduce. Put yourself in the Devonian. I know that'll be hard because it was more than 6000 years ago, but just try a little bit and you'll get it. The earths vertebrate population is thriving in the oceans, but with the exception of plants, nothing larger than (admittedly pretty big) insects has colonized the land. So you're a fish, with lungs, with primitive limbs (how did they evolve them you say? Well, you didn't, so I'm not going to tell you because I do have to keep studying at some point. But if you are interested I can run through that one as well. Limbs are always fun), but you have a problem. You lay non-shelled eggs that are just chock full of the kind of nutrients that make then everybody's favorite snack. So, what's a fish to do? Well, how about this... what if you got your lazy ase up out of the water, trundled the few metres over dry land to that semi-isolated pool over there and lay your eggs in that? Then since nothing else can make the distance, your eggs'll be safe, and then when the rains come and reconnect the pools to the rest of the water, your babies can swim out like good solid baby tetrapods ought to.
In short, creationism is idiotic.
-
Good job Black Wolf! :D
-
i wonder if he'll read it.
-
I've been following this thread for awhile (I like bloodsport...), and man...that was a nice reply, lol.
-
i wonder if he'll read it.
His response will be something on the order of:
"Durka durka durka mohammadalijihad!" :p
-
On a related note, this article (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/14741605.htm) about Judge Jones of the Dover Intelligent Design case is interesting. I'm glad there are still some judges that are maintaining their honesty and objectivity.
-
Side note:
:welcome:
All batteries... target m. Open fire!
Welcome to the HLP forums, m. Current top-side temperature is 40532 degrees centigrade, with internal temperatures being in the somewhat high side of 30 degrees centigrade.
Exits are to your right and left, and flamethrowers are under your seat. Be careful, though, as they are usually filled with dihydrogen monoxide, chemical formula H2O. If this is the case, you could try to use the rusty old shotguns in the weapon closet as clubs. Oh, and if you hear any strange noises from the ventilation shafts, don't worry, it's just Carl the Shivan; he likes to lurk in there. If you happen to cross him, just toss him your lunch and hope that it satisfies him. If it doesn’t… pray fast and hard. In the event of an emergency, you can and will be used as a flotation device. The Plasma rifles in the forward locker are released only under authorization of an Admin, a :v: God, and/or hyperintelligent shade of the color blue. Oh, and whatever you do, don't irritate karajorma, no matter how good of an idea it might seem.
*looks at kara* :p
*screams: jk! don't shoot!* :eek2:
:shaking: *runs*
:snipe:
jr2 was killed by a projectile from karajorma.
Anyways, m, you make some interesting points. Just go a bit easier on the 'tude. You have to remember that you do no-one a favor if you make them feel so bad towards you that everything is lost in a red haze. Expand some of those ideas and look at them in more detail. Then you can debate the sub-points, and >bonus!< nor everyone hates you except a few people who get worked up over everything anyways.
-
BTW ngtm1r, I paraphrased Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; and the source of the "proof destroys faith" logic is from Hebrews 11:6 which says that without faith it is impossible to please God, not it is impossible for God to exist.
Without faith God's influence is...well, nonexistent. So unless he reverses course and pulls an Old Testament on us he's going to be a nothing, a nonentity, to the world. And it would certainly require the reconfiguration of pretty much every organized religion there is into something very different, since they are, after all, faith-based.
Regardless of this point, however, my argument could actually be considered to have gained more weight, not less. Consider what's worse: not having to deal with an omnipotent omniscient being, or really, really pissing off an omnipotent omniscient being?
-
I'm BAAAACK!!!
Sorry 'bout the wait... I don't get online much. :(
Anyway... Black Wolf? No offense, but it might help if you didn't shoot yourself in the foot.
It just can not extract enough oxygen from the water to jheep going at full speed, and full speed is a useful thing to have when you're running from predators. Wouldn't it be useful to have a second method of obtaining oxygen, so you could swim at full speed for longer. Wouldn't it be great if you could just poip up to the surface... sorry, top of the water and take a gulp of air? Wouldn't that be a big advantage? Absolutely it would. And it was. (Quote from Black Wolf on pg. 22)
The problem is that the second method would be useless until at least mostly fully formed... If fishy tried going full speed with a little blob of cells that were only part of the "lung", then fishy would get eaten. Therefore the partially formed lung would be discarded because it was in no way beneficial.
Because it's a damned good idea to get out of the water to do one thing - reproduce. Put yourself in the Devonian. I know that'll be hard because it was more than 6000 years ago, but just try a little bit and you'll get it. The earths vertebrate population is thriving in the oceans, but with the exception of plants, nothing larger than (admittedly pretty big) insects has colonized the land. So you're a fish, with lungs, with primitive limbs (how did they evolve them you say? Well, you didn't, so I'm not going to tell you because I do have to keep studying at some point. But if you are interested I can run through that one as well. Limbs are always fun), but you have a problem. You lay non-shelled eggs that are just chock full of the kind of nutrients that make then everybody's favorite snack. So, what's a fish to do? Well, how about this... what if you got your lazy ase up out of the water, trundled the few metres over dry land to that semi-isolated pool over there and lay your eggs in that? Then since nothing else can make the distance, your eggs'll be safe, and then when the rains come and reconnect the pools to the rest of the water, your babies can swim out like good solid baby tetrapods ought to.
Another problem: Where would it get the instincts to perform this act? Unless I'm mistaken, fish do get their mating/reproduction habits from instinct. So what would happen is fishy would continue to lay eggs in the water and getting those nutritious objects eaten until it miraculously (oops) accidently mutated the complex programming required for the new instincts.
And about the Archaeopteryx:
I notice none of the things you mentioned were not fully formed (except for the "hands" :wtf: which are nothing more or less than fully formed claws. Indeed, you simply listed a bunch of body parts which you say are proof of its being a transitional form because other animals have them too. The platypus has a tail like a beaver, a bill like a duck, lays eggs like a lizard, and has fur like an otter. So what is it? A sort of transition between mammals, birds, and reptiles all at once? :confused:
Speaking of instinct, how the heck did any of the thousand-mile plus migrators get their instincts programmed in time to keep from freezing their butts off? You could say that they gradually moved south as winter gradually set in over millions of years, except the trees from that "era" don't show any signs of unusually long fall seasons.
And speaking of shooting yourselves in the foot (BTW someone should combine "hopping" and "snipe" to make ""footshot" :D ) more than once snowflakes have been mentioned as proof of evolution in nature. May I ask a question: If this is evolution, then why do all snowflakes have such obvious design? Why are there NO snowflakes that are just flakes of ice with no particular beauty? (Don't you DARE mention hail; they're two separate things and you know it.)
I have to go now, but I will be back with (among other things) an explanation of my Freespace analogy and a refutation of the ridiculous argument posed by ngtm1r:
BTW ngtm1r, I paraphrased Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy; and the source of the "proof destroys faith" logic is from Hebrews 11:6 which says that without faith it is impossible to please God, not it is impossible for God to exist.
Without faith God's influence is...well, nonexistent. So unless he reverses course and pulls an Old Testament on us he's going to be a nothing, a nonentity, to the world. And it would certainly require the reconfiguration of pretty much every organized religion there is into something very different, since they are, after all, faith-based.
Regardless of this point, however, my argument could actually be considered to have gained more weight, not less. Consider what's worse: not having to deal with an omnipotent omniscient being, or really, really pissing off an omnipotent omniscient being?
Which pretty much amounts to the predicted :hopping: .
:D
'til then,
m
-
lol, m, you suck at argument. prepare to be ripped a new one (i can't be bothered to do it myself, calc 2 final tomorrow)
-
Why are there NO snowflakes that are just flakes of ice with no particular beauty?
Easy - They are ice crystals. The shape simply comes from ice crystals forming in a hexagonal structure - Other crystals are no different in that respect, they all have a shape they tend to adhere to based on the crystalline bonds for that material. And in fact, all snowflakes are not beautiful anyway, some are quite plain and boring flakes of ice with no particular beauty, though still hexagonal due to the underlying crystal structure.
Not to mention beauty is invariably in the eye of the beholder, I know a few people who happen to think snow is decidedly ugly. Beauty simply can't be quantified, which basically invalidates any scientific argument involving it.
And how on earth would snowflakes be used as an example of evolution? It certainly hasn't by anyone on this thread, so I'd like to see the source for that... I have a hard time believing it's a serious biologist who has made that claim.
I'll stop there for now since the football game is on. Which I'm sure BW is watching as well, it being Australia and all.
-
To m ( trucated because a) footie and b) at work)
Partially formed lungs - in our little evolutionary line of descent - would not be a 'little blob of cells'. They would be air sacs, i.e. functional. (Otherwise, they would not be selected, would they?) i.e. respiratory organs co-opted to form swim bladders, or vice versa. Even a small air sac is potentially advantageous.
Some info; http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/140Sarcopterygii/140.000.html
also, RE: fish egg laying. It would evolve those instincts. Put simply; our little lungfish would be able to lay in both places. The lungfish that instinctually laid, or moved to (and laid by coincidence; probably the more likely) isolated shallow ponds would lead to a survival advantage for its offspring. Natural selection would favour and reinforce this behaviour. Remember that evolution involves mutation, and mutation includes behavioural (instinct) changes.
The archeopteryx is of value as a transitional form because it can be placed within a lineage of (the development of) features.
As far as the platypus goes, you can find information here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html). I'd suggest you bear in mind the geographical isolation of Australia and the concept of convergent evolution; a feature like, say, a beak is not restricted to birds - why would it be?
RE: Migration; what makes you think migration only occurs due to weather (for example, why not simply for finding food)? Moreso, it only needs to start as a simple concept; when cold, head in direction x. Selection pressure after that favours effective migration. and if you think there weren't seasons in the past...well, you just back that statement up. i don't know why I should have to look about for scientific sources all the time, when there's such - frankly - tosh being spouted.
RE: snowflakes - what the hell? I can't find that anywhere... but, beauty is a human concept. It's a point of view. So the appearance of snowflakes as evidence of ID is, i'm afraid to say, simply idiotic.
To be honest, m, I've read your text and i'm not sure you actually understand what evolution is, and how it works. Perhaps you should read up on it before posting.
-
Perhaps he is confusing the snowflakes thing with a common response to the aplication of the second law of thermodynamics.
Example:
"Even if the second law applied to biological evolution, a local decrease in entropy is allowed as demonstrated by the formation of snowflakes."
-
Well, trying to apply that to evolution is ridiculous anyway. Earth is not an isolated system, as has been pointed out about a hundred million times on this and similar threads already. But I can see how a lack of reading conprehension might lead to the snowflake comment. Actually understanding that line though (in which case it makes perfect sense) would make it obvious how incorrect that use of it is.
-
...and as I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread when you look at the caloric intakes of organisms, heat generated, et al. it makes perfect sense why 'life' is a logical 'solution' in creating even more entropy. (taking on a universal scale of a closed system reaching entropy in trillions of years after the big bang) Life as a whole might only take a few picoseconds off, but it adds to entropy despite its apparent 'order'.
Similarly large brains and tool use wind up also being functionally an inevitability out of that ever so simple law. Just break down the amount of energy consumed, and the inefficientcy of it, in simply typing this message. Take into account all of the infrastructure involved.
-
And speaking of shooting yourselves in the foot (BTW someone should combine "hopping" and "snipe" to make ""footshot" :D ) more than once snowflakes have been mentioned as proof of evolution in nature.
This is so wrong as to be laughable. :lol: If you're going to go on about people shooting themselves in the foot I suggest you first try to read the comments people post and then secondly try to understand them. No one said that snowflakes are proof of evolution in nature. You've completely failed to understand the subject matter and then arrogantly insisted you've discovered a logical flaw. You've discovered nothing of the sort.
I was the one who brought up snowflakes as an example of the fact that complexity can occur naturally. The shape of a snowflake has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and has everything to do with the manner in which crystals form. The point I was making is that someone who knows nothing about crystal formation could look at a snowflake under a microscope and say "Look how beautiful that is. Someone must have designed it" That person would be wrong though. There is nothing mystical about why a snowflake forms into that pattern. The process of crystal formation is pretty well understood.
So why mention snowflakes in a thread about evolution? Well basically the same argument about complexity is also made against evolution. People like you will say "This organ is so complex it must have been designed"
But the argument is as specious as when it is made for snowflakes. Snowflakes look complex but the reason behind that can soon be proved to be down to natural processes involved in crystal formation. It's the same thing with complexity in organs. The complexity can be explained scientifically there too. In this case by evolution.
So as you can (hopefully) see now the snowflake comment was to disprove the whole complexity must equal design argument that you yourself are using. Nowhere did anyone say that evolution had anything to do with the shape of a snowflake. You simply failed to understand what was being said and tripped over yourself in your hurry to make a point. Next time make damn certain what someone is saying before you claim that they have shot themselves in the foot.
-
ok, were going to go through this nice and easy.
The problem is that the second method would be useless until at least mostly fully formed... If fishy tried going full speed with a little blob of cells that were only part of the "lung", then fishy would get eaten. Therefore the partially formed lung would be discarded because it was in no way beneficial.
o k ...
first off, let uss understand that the water near the surface is typicaly higher in oxygen than the water lower, let us also understand that gills, while designed to work under water, are capable of extracting oxygen from air so long as they remain wet though they are hardly specalised for it. a behavior of gulping air when the water's oxygen level is insufichent, will likely develop, some fish's gills will work better at this than others and the ones who's gills are better at this will be more likely to surevive as they have a competitive advantage in the ability to exploit a resource more efectively. other behaviors such as swalowing air, might develop, wich would allow the fish to release the air slowly while totaly submerged, or there might be a secondary set of gills that form more specalised at getting oxygen from air. the fosil evedence I belive shows that the first lung like organs developed as an extention of the digestive system so the gulping hypothosis seems more likely, so we'll stick with that one. haveing air in one's gut can prove to make digestion more dificult, so probly this gulping action would only happen when the fish's stomach was empty (or nearly) this would mean that exploitation of this resource in this maner would be limeted, unless the air could be kept seperate from the food, even the slightest dimple in the stomach would help in this endevor, though it would be slow at first the stomach might divide into two chambers, the first one being mostly used to stor air long term, this is because the greater the shrinkage in the midle of a stomach the less the effect air will have on the digestion process, and the better to utalise air the fish would be. now the more the fish is storeing air internaly the more it will be able to absorb it internaly, you may be suprised to hear this but all exposed tisue absorbs oxygen, it's no were near enough to fuel our metabolisms, but a fraction of the oxygen you get comes from your skin, the same will be true of the fish's ever divergeing gut, eventualy the two cambers would be completly seporated and have a valve like opening derived from modified muscles that line the stomach, unfortunately this design while an improvement still has problems, though the fish can have both food and air at the same time, it cannot as easily swalow, haveing the opening tapered a bit might help, as would a chanel for moveing food, if nothing else it would allow for the fish to hold a bit more air when it swallows. these morphological changes would continue untill the second chamber is divided off quite well, it now is effectively a swim blader.
at this point the fish is still useing air simply as a suplement, (and boyancy aid, most likely) most fish probly wouldn't need more than that, but other fish, that live in particularly low oxygen environments, like tropical swamps were heat and decomposition of plant matter would cause the water's oxygen levels to totaly deplete at times would find the ability to relyably utalise air essental. there ansestors who totaly shuned air would have never been able to survive in this environment, the early air gulpers might have been able to at most survive enough to flee, the swim bladered fish could posably desperately cling to life here. the preasure to develop a more efective air beathing mechanism would be enormus. the first thing likely to happen would be the air blader's oxygen absobtion capabilities would become far more important, mutations that led to more blood flow to the lineing would universaly be extreemly benifical, as would mutations leading to greater surface area. IMO it would be likely less than two million years before the inhabitants of these waters had air bladers with, at first an aray of folds and groves wich eventualy would become an intracate system of pasageways leading to small cavities, the would effectavely be primitive lungs, and you would have the lung fish.
this is simply one posable whay things could have gon down, a posibility I could come up with a dozen diferent senarios that could lead to this
Another problem: Where would it get the instincts to perform this act? Unless I'm mistaken, fish do get their mating/reproduction habits from instinct. So what would happen is fishy would continue to lay eggs in the water and getting those nutritious objects eaten until it miraculously (oops) accidently mutated the complex programming required for the new instincts.
how's this, fish that prefer laying in shallower water tend to have more surviveing offsping. you would eventualy haveing fish that lay eggs on the shore line, not exactly the best environment for developing eggs, but at least you don't have as bad of a preditor issue. so fish that prefered the wettest spot on the bank, out of the water would now have the advantage out of the shish who have already a prference for swiming onto the bank to lay eggs. this could easaly lead to fish that seek out shallow pools of water just past the bank of the river/pond/whatever
simple, no forthought requiered
And about the Archaeopteryx:
I notice none of the things you mentioned were not fully formed (except for the "hands" :wtf: which are nothing more or less than fully formed claws. Indeed, you simply listed a bunch of body parts which you say are proof of its being a transitional form because other animals have them too. the thing obviusly had a use for these features in there 'not fully formed' state The platypus has a tail like a beaver, a bill like a duck, lays eggs like a lizard, and has fur like an otter. So what is it? A sort of transition between mammals, birds, and reptiles all at once? :confused:
actualy it sort of is, the fosil and genetic evidence indicate that the platypus is one of the most primitive mamals, very similar to the earliest mamals in many ways. these early mamals diverged from reptiles. the 'bill' is actualy nothing like that of a duck if you realy look at it, it's much more fleshy and is covered in very sensitive nerves that it uses to track it's prey in merky water
Speaking of instinct, how the heck did any of the thousand-mile plus migrators get their instincts programmed in time to keep from freezing their butts off?those animals that had a preference to move south when the days start getting shorter were more likely to survive You could say that they gradually moved south as winter gradually set in over millions of years, except the trees from that "era" don't show any signs of unusually long fall seasons.no idea what the **** your on about here :wtf:
And speaking of shooting yourselves in the foot more than once snowflakes have been mentioned as proof of evolution in nature. no they haven't, not by our side anyway May I ask a question: If this is evolution, then why do all snowflakes have such obvious design? first of this isn't evolutions, second off math Why are there NO snowflakes that are just flakes of ice with no particular beauty?there are (Don't you DARE mention hail; they're two separate things and you know it.) yeah, still, not talking about hail, thought one could say that is an artifical distinction
-
Ach, could you have written those 20,000 words in a colour that won't give me eye cancer! :p
-
So why mention snowflakes in a thread about evolution? Well basically the same argument about complexity is also made against evolution. People like you will say "This organ is so complex it must have been designed"
The whole idea of irreducible complexity is mathematically bogus (http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/problem-with-irreducible-complexity.html) anyway. :p
-
The problem is that the second method would be useless until at least mostly fully formed... If fishy tried going full speed with a little blob of cells that were only part of the "lung", then fishy would get eaten. Therefore the partially formed lung would be discarded because it was in no way beneficial.
You're absolutely right. A little blob of cells would be useless. Fortunately for the theory of evolution, nobody has ever claimed primitive lungs would form as a blob of cells. Evolution doesn't ask for a brand new organ to grow the same way as it would in an embryo. Hell, for that matter, lungs don't sponaneously grow as a blob of cells in an embryo - they split off the digestive system.
Keep in mind that prior to the development of lungs in lobe fins, all devonian fish were gill breaters, extracting oxygen from the water, and, just like in modern oceans, the vast majority stayed near the surface (both because it's more highly oxygenated and (mostly) because they need to remain in the photic zone so that you can have a primary producer kicking off food webs). Thus, all fish are at the same disadvantage - they can't go at full speed for a long period of time without suffocating, but they're also all (more or less) living in the same relatively high oxygen environment with an even higher Oxygen environment just above them. That's where you get lungs. Now for how.
It's important, whether you're an evolutionary scientist or a creationist pretender, to understand both the function and the method of the organs you're interested in. So lets take a look at the lungs.
Your lungs are a pair of sacs,with a series of bronchioles which are covered in alveoli, which are extremely small balls of very thin walled cells connected to capillaries. The purpose of all this confusing detail and i-ending words is to provide an immense surface area relative to volume through which gas diffusion (both O2 coming in and CO2 going out) takes place. Now, if you're clever enough to go to the top of the class, youd be able to understand where I'm going with this. But you're not.
The evolution of lungs has practically nothing to do with the evolution of a separate sac for which gas diffusion takes place. It has to do with evolution redirecting capilaries down to the surface of the gas transfer membrane. The reason it takes place in a separated sac is because:
a) that makes it possible for all these specialized adaptations to take place without impeding digestion and
b) it increases the total available surface area.
So, now that you've got a bit of an idea where I'm going, I'd normally let you take over from this point but you're yet to get yourself out of my annoying idiot book, so I'm just going to assume that you can't, in fact, fionish this story. The fact here is that any increase in capillary-cover over the surface of a potential gas-transfer membrane would be beneficial to an organism which gulps air even accidentally and occasionally. Moreover, a clever energey saving technique use by a very small number of modern fish is to swim right at the surface of the water and utlize the decreased drag of air relative to water to allow itself to move faster. Most fish don't do this today because it tends to get them eaten by birds, but it would have been a perfectly viable technique in the Devonian. So, we have a fish which lives near an alternate air source, has a clear need for one, and can gain evolutionary benefit from a relatively simple anatomical change (rerouting capillaries). That's means, motive and opportunity, the textbook recipe for TV-show murders and Darwinian evolution.
Another problem: Where would it get the instincts to perform this act? Unless I'm mistaken, fish do get their mating/reproduction habits from instinct. So what would happen is fishy would continue to lay eggs in the water and getting those nutritious objects eaten until it miraculously (oops) accidently mutated the complex programming required for the new instincts.
Name me one egg laying vertebrate that has no concern where its eggs are placed whatsoever. There are very few, if any (I can't think of any). Many build nests, dens, whatever to incubate their eggs or just to let them grow. Even fish cement their eggs to some sort of substrate, a rock, a piece of coral, whatever. Evolutionary advantage comes to the animal which has the strongest or most innovative instinct as to where to place their eggs, and if the eggs of a fish which instinctually lays its eggs out of the water have a vastly greater survival rate, that instinct is going to spread fast.
Moreover, instinct doesn't have to be complex. These lobe fins were already inevitably using their primitive limbs to move around in their habitats, and the existing instinct to find food might eventually have driven it over thin sandbanks into the isolated pools. Its not much of a leap from a food finding instinct to a reproductive instinct if a new method is already established and working for one or the other.
And about the Archaeopteryx:
I notice none of the things you mentioned were not fully formed (except for the "hands" :wtf: which are nothing more or less than fully formed claws. Indeed, you simply listed a bunch of body parts which you say are proof of its being a transitional form because other animals have them too.
Yes. Other animals directly above or below the archaeopteryx on the evolutionary ladder, exactly as you'd expect from a transitional form. Honestly, I know I'm talking to an idiot, but I expect my idiots to at least pretend to comprehend what's going on. Moreover, there are "not-fully-formed" features on the archaeopteryx, if you choose to twist anatomy and view it with the benefit of hindsight.
- A feathered, reptilian tail is a "not-fully-formed" pygostyle because it is feathered like a bird but the vertebrae have not fused into a pygostyle like a dinosaur.
- The wings are "not-fully-formed" because the claws and hands of the dinosaurian anscestors of Archaeopteryx still exist instead of having been fused into a nice neat modern wing.
- The feathers on Sinornithosaurus are "not-fully-formed" because they aren't fully formed feathers.
The fact is though, arguing about "not-fully-formed" body parts with creationists is a fools errand because you people specialize in arbitrarily categorizing things because their existence as transitional forms defies your fundamental argument. The only thing you people would be happy with is an elephant which turns into a lizard somewhere around the hips, which any real scientist/evolutionist/trained monkey can tell you is not what evolution predicts, nor what occurs in nature.
Moreover, I've given you a list of features that makes Archaeopteryx a transitional form, so you say you want the organs to be transitional as well. Remember that whatever Archaeopteryx was, it was a fully formed Archaeopteryx, perfectly adapted to its own particular way of life, whatever that may have been. Transitional organs, a spleen half mutated into a pancrease, for example, would be no use to a fully formed Archaeopteryx and as such they never existed. What you have instead are organs which exist as perfectly functional organs at their given state of development.
The platypus has a tail like a beaver, a bill like a duck, lays eggs like a lizard, and has fur like an otter. So what is it? A sort of transition between mammals, birds, and reptiles all at once? :confused:
Sorry, you lose again. The platypus's bill is nothing like a ducks, except in shape. A ducks beak is, like any other birds, made of bone and keratin, whereas a platypus' bill is a bone-free, rubbery fleshy organ. Their skulls make the differences patently obvious:
Duck:
(http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/SB010-lg.jpg)
Platypus:
(http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/Platypus_Skull.jpg)
As you should be able to see, there's similarity only when you're using only the most immediately apparent view - dig just a little deeper and the differences become obvious.
The platypus is a fantastic example of convergent evolution - when two demonstratably different structures become physically similar due to similarity of habitat or use. I'd like to point out that you brought up not one but two swimming mammals (a beaver and an otter) to use as your mammal comparison, and an aquatic bird for your bird comparison. Convergent evolution predicts that even unrelated animals occupying similar niches will develop similar structures. A duck is an aquatic bird, so a structurally similar bill evolves in both. Otters and Beavers are aquatic mamals, so similar insulatory fur evolves in all three, and a similar locomotor module evolves in two. As for laying eggs like a lizrd, you're absolutely right. It also holds its legs likre a lizard and has a consequently lizrd-like gait when its out of the water, because it is related to reptiles. It's the result of the survival of a much earlier branch of mammals which has survived here in Australia. It's not transitional, but it has features from both groups.
-
The whole idea of irreducible complexity is mathematically bogus (http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/problem-with-irreducible-complexity.html) anyway. :p
I think I made th point that Specified Complexity was mathmatical nonsense at the time. Nice to see that Irreducible Complexity is a load of mathmatical crap too. :D
That said we've let m have his fun for long enough. We're right, science backs up our point of view. Time for m to explain not why evolution is wrong but why whatever he believes is right. :p
-
The problem is that the second method would be useless until at least mostly fully formed... If fishy tried going full speed with a little blob of cells that were only part of the "lung", then fishy would get eaten. Therefore the partially formed lung would be discarded because it was in no way beneficial.
Why do you still imagine this as half formed useless features? There is no such thing as "part of a lung" or "part of an eye" or "part of a heart". How many times do I have to tell you this? Why do you keep ignoring me?
Creationists ask where these things exist and how impossible it all is, well, evolution never suggested these things should exist like that anyway. You could kind of refer to the simple versions of hearts and simple lungs and simple eyes as "half an eye" or "half a heart" when compared to our organs, but only if you incorrectly think of our eyes as being at the top of some kind of evolutionary ladder of complexity with our organs being the "full" organ at the top, but these simple hearts, lungs and eyes were and are all fully functioning organs that is a usefull adaptation for that organism.
Simply put if the adaptation is usefull it will be passed on, if it is deleterious it wont. If a fish had a deleterious genetic mutation then it couldnt pass its genes on.
Another problem: Where would it get the instincts to perform this act? Unless I'm mistaken, fish do get their mating/reproduction habits from instinct. So what would happen is fishy would continue to lay eggs in the water and getting those nutritious objects eaten until it miraculously (oops) accidently mutated the complex programming required for the new instincts.
Your problem is that you still see evolution as one big step, when its small incremental steps. You scoffed at the ideas of a fish with legs. How could this cope? Ridiculous notion you said, thereby denyng this little fella exists.
Pic 1. http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/MBCNg/Images/mudskipper.jpg
Many pics: http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=mudskipper&sa=N&tab=wi
So you'll say so what? Its still a fish, its not hard to imagine a fish evolving this ability its just micro evolution, right? Well, this is how evolution works, "micro evolution" IS evolution.
And about the Archaeopteryx:
I notice none of the things you mentioned were not fully formed (except for the "hands" :wtf: which are nothing more or less than fully formed claws. Indeed, you simply listed a bunch of body parts which you say are proof of its being a transitional form because other animals have them too.
What did you expect them to have? See above, we dont expect organisms to evolve useless half forms.
The platypus has a tail like a beaver, a bill like a duck, lays eggs like a lizard, and has fur like an otter. So what is it? A sort of transition between mammals, birds, and reptiles all at once? :confused:
The platypus is a mammal. Yes, it lays eggs, but does that make it not a mammal? No, of course not. Every other characteristic in a platypus such as its fur, mammary glands and that its warm-blooded points to its being a mammal.
Im going to quote someone on another forum that explains this better than I could.
The platypus MAY be a cross between two animals, but all its structures – bill, flappers, etc. (as far as I know) are all plainly one thing or another.
"See? This is what I mean about the creationist perspective being so far removed from the way things really are. You see mammals and reptiles as originally separate categories, and the only way you can imagine a new species emerging is if it were a hybrid of two already-distinct species cross-breeding. I see an analogy here where the creationist sees all his fingers appearing out of nothing and then merging into one combined hand and arm. But of course life develops the other way; one arm splits off, or flowers into fingers who all share a common source. Just as you would agree that all of the different cultures of man diverged from one common one, as have every breed of dogs been bred from one source species, so too do languages evolve, and religions, political systems, and even ideas - all share common bases which diverge and specialize into increasingly distinct forms.
The platypus is not one category or the other. It is a therapsid mammal just as we still are. As I told you before, evolution never suggests that one thing ever turned into something else. Every new species or genus, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were. Marsupials and Placental mammals all stem from a basal form of egg-laying mammals. The mammal line begins with the separation of synapsids and diapsids way back in the late Paleozoic era. Modern reptiles are still diapsids. Modern mammals (including you) are still synapsids. And both are still amniote tetrapods, as yet another indicator of their common ancestry.
The last monotremes on Earth, the platypus (and the echidna) represent the sole survivors of the original form of therapsid mammals. In the Mesozoic era, all "reptile-like mammals", the quasi-mammals and would-be mammals -were monotremes of a sort, in that they all laid soft eggs that hatched immediately, and the young were forced lap milky sweat from their mother's skin because they still hadn't evolved nipples. Once, the ruling mammals were cynodonts, triconodonts, multituberculates, and palaeoryctoids. Now those are all extinct, having been replaced by only two groups, marsupials and placental mammals. "
- Aron Ra
Speaking of instinct, how the heck did any of the thousand-mile plus migrators get their instincts programmed in time to keep from freezing their butts off? You could say that they gradually moved south as winter gradually set in over millions of years, except the trees from that "era" don't show any signs of unusually long fall seasons.
Once again you argue from your own ignorence and pretend thats an argument.
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/evolut.htm
Evolution of instinct is a harder thing to study, but just because we dont know "absolutely everything" doesnt mean we know absolutely nothing. Its something Creationists dont seem to understand. Holy Crap, there are things about gravity we dont understand? This means gravity is all wrong! I know its really angels pushing objects around!
And speaking of shooting yourselves in the foot (BTW someone should combine "hopping" and "snipe" to make ""footshot" :D ) more than once snowflakes have been mentioned as proof of evolution in nature.
May I ask a question: If this is evolution, then why do all snowflakes have such obvious design?
I can make ice and salt crystals myself, in fact I used to make long ones that grew and hung from a piece of string in primary school. Why do they do that? Why is it gravity can be reduced to mathematical equations? Its just because thats how the universe works.
The point of the snowflake argument is to show Creationists that apparent "design" can appear naturally without any need for supernatural hand to come in and poof it into existence full formed, and so their logic of being able to look at a living organism and say "this is too complex to have occured naturally" is simply bad logic. No one uses snowflakes to "prove" evolution, thats just you not reading what people say properly.
Why are there NO snowflakes that are just flakes of ice with no particular beauty?
Unless you are analysing what humans find beautiful, "beauty" of this nature is meaningless in science.
I have to go now, but I will be back with (among other things) an explanation of my Freespace analogy
Cant you talk about the actual topic instead of ridiculous irrelevant and obscure references to science fiction?
-
I think I made th point that Specified Complexity was mathmatical nonsense at the time. Nice to see that Irreducible Complexity is a load of mathmatical crap too. :D
Bah. I can never keep track of the silly ID lingo. :p
-
I have to go now, but I will be back with (among other things) an explanation of my Freespace analogy
Cant you talk about the actual topic instead of ridiculous irrelevant and obscure references to science fiction?
D'uh, he already made the obscure reference, and since nobody understood him (except me?), he now has to explain what he meant.
Apparently, nobody is good at understanding illustrations? (No offence, but some of that wasn't that hard to understand.) Try to see things from the other person's point of view, while taking into account that your own sort of bias, by which I'm trying to mean that you see everything differently from another person with a fundamentally differing viewpoint than your own. You have to understand that when you try to get someone to come over to your side, which may or may not be the correct side. In order to do that, you have to consider and respond to the other person's arguments just as you'd expect them to consider and respond to yours. Otherwise, things can descend quickly into a name-calling session. Ask yourself this question: "If what I believe about ________ could be proven wrong, would I want to know about it?" And, of course, with something as big as the Creation/Evolution debate, you have to consider the amount of evidence on either side. Because, while it's the same evidence, the different sides make radically different assumptions in interpreting that evidence. I guess it comes down to who interprets the evidence correctly. To do that, they have to use the scientific method.
(Remember in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, when the "evidence" was being re-assembled into Earth Mark Two.
That is unless you would care to take a quick stroll on the surface of New Earth. It's only half completed I'm afraid — we haven't even finished burying the artificial dinosaur skeletons in the crust yet, then we have the Tertiary and Quarternary Periods of the Cenozoic Era to lay down, and ..."
In that case, both camps would be wrong, although you could hardly blame them considering the circumstances. BTW, full quote for the Babel Fish argument, I believe, is this:
"The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
"The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
"`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
"`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.
The monkey typed "1" and then got bored and left the typewriter.
Unfortunately "1" was only part of the necessary "1234567" for the first living cell to survive.
"1" was discarded by nature, which didn't realize that it was necessary for "1234567"
-Since natural selection is so slow, that would work against the process, as unless you defeated insurmountable odds, only one mutation that could be beneficial in the future, only when combined with other impossible mutations, would occur. Natural Selection says, " :wtf: ?" and discards this (in the current configuration) useless mutaton.
You see, my friend, typing "1" would be like making an ML-16 laser with no ship to fire it. The Terrans discard the ML-16, then the Vasudans build a canopy for a cockpit (monkey types "2"). Since it is a Vasudan canopy it does not benefit the mindless Terrans. The Terrans discard the Vasudan canopy.
Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument, another mutation that would form a beneficial system when combined w/ other changes arrives. Oops, let's not stretch it and say that it occured in the same organism. Since the mutation has no immediate benefit, it is eventually discarded by this organism as well. Even if you had this mutation in the same organism, it's still not beneficial unless combined with 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. So even the organism that "1" occured in would not keep the mutation, assuming "1" was miraculously preserved.
OK, and before anyone jumps in with "mutations don't have to be beneficial to be kept" I am not[/i] saying that the organism says "Is this new mutation beneficial to me now? If not, I'm chucking it." What I'm saying is, mutations are 99+% harmful, what's the chances of a soon (sort of) to be beneficial mutation surviving this vicious harful mutation onslaught? That's not to mention whatever's formed of the poor organism itself. The chances are almost, actually, probably even are 100% that the poor thing is fried from the get - go. See, you'd have to have the reproduction system evolved before the first organism ever to have evolved succesfully can pass away and RIP. Otherwise, it's back to the drawing board. So forget new "future" beneficial mutations. This thing can't even reproduce!
I do believe m was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and saying that self-reproducing organisms had somehow miraculously (if you're uncomfortable with that word, find one for me that's not as long as "against all odds") evolved, and is now ready to receive some new beneficial mutations, while hopefully avoiding harmful ones. Now, if anyone missed it, I do believe the harmful mutations are embodied in the Shivans from m's analogy.
Unfortunately the Shivans (UV light) come along and wipe out the hapless Apollo with its useless cannon.
If I'm not mistaken, m is trying to point out the (in my most humble opinion) ridiculous odds that each individual step of an organism evolving would have to overcome, and then, just for the sake of the argument, m is giving evolution the benefit of the doubt, and wondering how even an organism that managed to evolve to a certain level of complexity could manage to survive in such a hospitable place. (Think of how friendly the conditions on Terra were supposedly ~a few billion years ago when the first proteins/cells had to have emerged.) I do believe that back then, the ionosphere hadn't been popped into place, or at least wasn't funcioning fully, correct? The radiation was immense. While this might make some interesting combinations in the soup, it would even more quickly destroy whatever emerged.
The octopus eye was destroyed by the Shivans before the Terrans came into existence. It did, however, leave a message regarding the Shivan weakness and referring to them as "The Destroyers".
That was a bit confusing. :wtf: m? Any enlightenment on my humble explainations of your machinations? FYI next time it'd be easier to explain your analogy either as you give it or right afterwards, in the same post. Otherwise, people that can't make the connection or don't want to will not be happy. And the people that can won't be happy either, because they have to explain your analogy whilst you're not around. And then, you'll come back and probably tell the people that could understand it, that they mixed it all up. So just explain yourself up front from now on, it would be much easier.
Cant you talk about the actual topic instead of ridiculous irrelevant and obscure references to science fiction?
There's nothing wrong with making a point using an analogy; just as long as you make sure everyone understands it. Because everyone understanding it is why you're using the analogy in the first place.
-
This is still going on? I sure as hell am not re reading all the pages i missed.
I frankly dont have the time to continue this any time soon. I do want to tho. Dam.
(Posts like the one above are the reason this was so ****ing hard to keep up on.. INSANELY long replys.)
-
This is still going on? I sure as hell am not re reading all the pages i missed.
I frankly dont have the time to continue this any time soon. I do want to tho. Dam.
(Posts like the one above are the reason this was so ****ing hard to keep up on.. INSANELY long replys.)
@Charismatic:
Just do what I did. Hit "Print" and print all 200 pages. It makes for an interesting and sometimes humorous read on a rainy day.
-
If I'm not mistaken, m is trying to point out the (in my most humble opinion) ridiculous odds that each individual step of an organism evolving would have to overcome
Anyone who tries to talk about "what are the odds that x would have happened?" after the fact need to take a course in probability and statistics. The perceived odds obtained from hindsight are irrelevant because there is plenty of evidence that the distribution of species is due to universal common descent and evolution (I'm lazy so you can read the evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) yourself).
-
D'uh, he already made the obscure reference, and since nobody understood him (except me?), he now has to explain what he meant.
Apparently, nobody is good at understanding illustrations? (No offence, but some of that wasn't that hard to understand.) Try to see things from the other person's point of view, while taking into account that your own sort of bias, by which I'm trying to mean that you see everything differently from another person with a fundamentally differing viewpoint than your own. You have to understand that when you try to get someone to come over to your side, which may or may not be the correct side. In order to do that, you have to consider and respond to the other person's arguments just as you'd expect them to consider and respond to yours. Otherwise, things can descend quickly into a name-calling session. Ask yourself this question: "If what I believe about ________ could be proven wrong, would I want to know about it?" And, of course, with something as big as the Creation/Evolution debate, you have to consider the amount of evidence on either side. Because, while it's the same evidence, the different sides make radically different assumptions in interpreting that evidence. I guess it comes down to who interprets the evidence correctly. To do that, they have to use the scientific method.
Frankly, i'm sick of the (frequently religion driven) bull**** that often gets spouted in these type of threads (plus, I doubt God or A God or Some Gods would want humanity to be blind and dumb), and which literally threatens the very progression of human knowledge by trying to destroy rational investigation in favour of dogma and assumption.
It's very clear what the scientific method supports - and the scientists qualified to use it - and where the evidence falls. That's why every single arguement put against evolution in this thread is either a) a misunderstanding of evolution or b) already researched and countered. The idea that creationism / ID is in any way 'equal' or a 'competitor' to evolutionary theory (and other science related to the origins of existence) in terms of logic, evidence, etc, is frankly laughable.
Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument, another mutation that would form a beneficial system when combined w/ other changes arrives. Oops, let's not stretch it and say that it occured in the same organism. Since the mutation has no immediate benefit, it is eventually discarded by this organism as well. Even if you had this mutation in the same organism, it's still not beneficial unless combined with 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. So even the organism that "1" occured in would not keep the mutation, assuming "1" was miraculously preserved.
OK, and before anyone jumps in with "mutations don't have to be beneficial to be kept" I am not[/i] saying that the organism says "Is this new mutation beneficial to me now? If not, I'm chucking it." What I'm saying is, mutations are 99+% harmful, what's the chances of a soon (sort of) to be beneficial mutation surviving this vicious harful mutation onslaught? That's not to mention whatever's formed of the poor organism itself. The chances are almost, actually, probably even are 100% that the poor thing is fried from the get - go. See, you'd have to have the reproduction system evolved before the first organism ever to have evolved succesfully can pass away and RIP. Otherwise, it's back to the drawing board. So forget new "future" beneficial mutations. This thing can't even reproduce!
I do believe m was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and saying that self-reproducing organisms had somehow miraculously (if you're uncomfortable with that word, find one for me that's not as long as "against all odds") evolved, and is now ready to receive some new beneficial mutations, while hopefully avoiding harmful ones. Now, if anyone missed it, I do believe the harmful mutations are embodied in the Shivans from m's analogy.
This seems to be falling more than a wee bit back into the same (false) 'part formed lung' type analogy. Firstly, it's worth mentioning the majority of mutations are neutral, with no expressed affect upon survival chances. IIRc the average human has about 7 mutations within their DNA. Also, it's worth noting out the falsehood of the 1234..etc sequence in this analogy. The classic ID/creationist mistake is assuming that because something works, it can only work in that one way. Essentially, it's like saying an IKEA table is the only kind of table possible, because you've never seen any other tables (say, one from B&Q). So when our theoretical number evolution selects '1', it's not because it wants that sequence, it's because 1 is advantageous. Likewise, 2, 3, 4, etc is advantageous. And the consequence of that cumulative selection is 1234567689.
In fact, the analogy gets worse (as you put it), because if 1 alone was not advantageous, it wouldn't be selected. But the value of our 123456789 chain only arises, in reality (i.e. if this was some evolved thing), because it's a cumulation - a product of - these mutant selections. Numerically, 3678952 or so is just as likely, after all, provided the cumulative selections are beneficial. It's only a human assignment - attempting to create a false concept of 'chance' - that means we've picked 123456789.
Now, i'll admit we've been sidetracked by looking at how 123456789 could be formed by evolution, because the one thing evolution does not do, is work to a set target or singular 'design'. So in reality the whole 123456789 analogy is just a demonstration of how progressive selection steps can make something very unlikely looking, a lot less unlikely in actuality. 8923545 could be just as - or more - advantageous, it just depends on what mutations arise for selections.
With regards to reproduction; reproduction does not need to be sexual (i.e. mitosis). It evolved that way - for large complex lifeforms - because of the obvious advantages through genetic diversity.
One theory, for example, is that sex - on an early life basis - evolved as a consequence of cannibalistic eating; cells do not always consume what they 'engulf', and this is a likely reason for - for example - cells acquiring organelles like mitochondria. There a myriad of 'quasi-sex' type activities seen by bacteria, such as sharing plastids to partial genetic crossover. Simple penecillin resistance is a very good example, of course, of evolution through non-sexual reproduction.
Anyways, to briefly step back & recap; as said earlier, most mutations are neutral. Negative ones are 'rejected' by selection, positive ones selected. The cumulation of selected mutations create evolution. The progressive selection of beneficial mutations results in continuous 'improvement' and refinement of an organism, to the extent that they become well adapted to their environment and, to those unaware of the theory, 'designed'. This end organism - not strictly an end, because evolution and selection pressure/change are constantly convergently evolved Platypus beak design.
Simple enough, surely?
If I'm not mistaken, m is trying to point out the (in my most humble opinion) ridiculous odds that each individual step of an organism evolving would have to overcome, and then, just for the sake of the argument, m is giving evolution the benefit of the doubt, and wondering how even an organism that managed to evolve to a certain level of complexity could manage to survive in such a hospitable place. (Think of how friendly the conditions on Terra were supposedly ~a few billion years ago when the first proteins/cells had to have emerged.) I do believe that back then, the ionosphere hadn't been popped into place, or at least wasn't funcioning fully, correct? The radiation was immense. While this might make some interesting combinations in the soup, it would even more quickly destroy whatever emerged.
Ah, so we've moved off the topic of evolution and onto abiogenesis (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438?fulltext=true) now, have we?
They're not ridiculous odds, though, when you think about it. Even ignoring the infinite universe type theories, all you need it a 1 in, ooh, 1000 billion or so chance to justify it (I think I should've posted earlier a link to an article of probabilities of abiogenesis, no doubt which was left unread).
Anyways, back to life/atmosphere. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9745762&dopt=Abstract
(if anyone has access and can get the full report, please do :) )
The surface of early Earth was exposed to both UVC radiation (< 280 nm) and higher doses of UVB (280-315 nm) compared with the surface of present day Earth. The degree to which this radiation environment acted as a selection pressure on organisms and biological systems has rarely been theoretically examined with respect to the biologically effective irradiances that ancient organisms would receive. Here action spectra for DNA inactivation and isolated chloroplast inhibition are used to estimate biologically effective irradiances on archean Earth. Comparisons are made with present day Earth. The theoretical estimations on the UV radiation screening required to protect DNA on archean Earth compare well with field and laboratory observations on protection strategies found in present day microbial communities. They suggest that many physical and biological methods may have been effective and would have allowed for the radiation of life even under the high UV radiation regimes of archean Earth. Such strategies would also have provided effective reduction of photoinhibition by UV radiation. The data also suggest that the UV regime on the surface of Mars is not a life limiting factor per se, although other environmental factors such as desiccation and low temperatures may contribute towards the apparent lack of a surface biota.
(of course, define 'emerged'. Why would a single cellular / proto-life type organism emerge from the primordial soup anyways? Some would surely stay in....and probably start converting gases. In fact, I think that's one of the theories for the oxygen increase that took place in the earths atmosphere, I believe hydrogen-oxygen conversion from a 'mat' of primitive early life in the primordial soup)
It strikes me, of course, that a) all these attacks on evolutionary theory so far are pretty much invalid and answered by existing research and b) there has been no attempt to provide an equally plausible, evidenced or simply better explanation for the current complexity of life on earth. In fact, I'd like to follow Kara in asking for people to actually explain why they are right, rather than launch rather erroneous attacks upon a tried and tested scientific theory.
-
In fact, I'd like to follow Kara in asking for people to actually explain why they are right, rather than launch rather erroneous attacks upon a tried and tested scientific theory.
Indeed. I'll never understand why the hell these people suddenly think they've found a hole in one of the best-supported modern scientific theories, and that they've proven thousands upon thousands of scientists wrong and their own twisted beliefs right.
-
Game. Set. Match. BlackWolf
-
God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, "Lord, we don't
need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life
out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the
'beginning.'"
"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.
"Well, " says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it
into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus
creating man."
"Well, that's interesting. Show Me."
So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.
"Oh no, no, no..." interrupts God,
"Get your own dirt."
All relevant I think?
-
Why?
-
Praytell, why bring up abiogenesis in a thread on evolution?
-
Praytell, why bring up abiogenesis in a thread on evolution?
It's a thread about evolution versus CREATION, (abiogenesis?) The creation of life on this planet, don't you have to go back to the start of evolution?
-
But evolution starts when you already have life.
It's a common misconception, but the general theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the generation of life in one form or another. Bringing the scientific approach to abiogenesis into a debate of "Creationisn vs. Evolution" as you put it makes about as much sense as those creationist dullards going all the way back to the Big Bang when whinging about evolution.
If you're after an interesting read, I suggest you have a look at the contemporary theories regarding abiogenesis, as it's an intruiging topic to say the least. Of course, the subject is obviously somewhat more contested that evolution - an example of which being the Vatican's acceptance of evolution, but mild opposition to abiogensis - and of course less developed given its youth, but it's still a very informative subject.
Regarding your 'statement' earlier: it should be noted that, while you made it out that Evolution is attempting to 'disprove' Creationism and/or the existance of a deity, it's actually the other way around, in that Creationism is the school of thought trying to muscle a well-accepted idea out of its rut and force itself upon the minds of people.
-
Praytell, why bring up abiogenesis in a thread on evolution?
It's a thread about evolution versus CREATION, (abiogenesis?) The creation of life on this planet, don't you have to go back to the start of evolution?
No. Evolution is the development of life, abiogensis is the formation of the first life.
-
Besides, we know perfectly well how the dirt got here, too. But again, that's out of biology and into astrophysics, and has nothing to do with the subject.
-
Well I thought it was a funny joke anyway, and I wasn't the one who brought up abiogenesis either. I'm routing for the evolutionaries on this one though! C'mon you EVOLUTIONARIES! Do you think that chant will catch on?? HMMM! ;)
-
You see, I hate that joke, because it basically says God has to change the rules to win. The challenge wasn't to create your own dirt but to create life from pre-existing dirt; the origin of the dirt's irrevelant to the challenge.
I suppose you could make a parallel to the arguements out of that, but I'm busy right now.
-
Anyways, back to life/atmosphere. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9745762&dopt=Abstract
(if anyone has access and can get the full report, please do :) )
http://isotope.colorado.edu/~astr5835/Cockell%201998.pdf
Always Google the title of these things once you've found an abstract. Often places like to charge for stuff that's been freely posted elsewhere. That said, unless you're pretty good on your micro-biuology and chemistry, there's not a lot there that isn't in the abstract (I'm having a hard time reading it and I'm supposed to be full bottle on this stuff). There is a good table on page 11 though which summarises a lot of the potential survival strategies pretty well.
Personally, I don't think UV radiation is such a problem for early life, since it probably couldn't have started on the surface. We have tenuous evidence for life as far back as 3.8 billion years and definite evidence from 3.5 billion years, when we know the earth was regularly being pummelled by huge meteorites large enough to wipe out most or all life on the surface. It's easier to imagine life starting under the earth or deep underwater and migrating up over and over again until it managed to get enough of a foothold that the (gradually less and less frequent) meteorite strikes didn't completely wipe it out and it could get properly started.
-
In fact, I'd like to follow Kara in asking for people to actually explain why they are right, rather than launch rather erroneous attacks upon a tried and tested scientific theory.
Indeed. I'll never understand why the hell these people suddenly think they've found a hole in one of the best-supported modern scientific theories, and that they've proven thousands upon thousands of scientists wrong and their own twisted beliefs right.
May I name a few scientists who disagree with you?
Antony Flew: Leading Atheist studied DNA for awhile and became a deist. http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian: Invented the MRI, despite everyone telling him it was impossible.
Dr. Wernher Von Braun: Need I say more?
-
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian; not a biologist (degree in Mathematics and MD in Medicine). Also a young-earth creationist, and we know how wrong that is...right?
Antony Flew; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html He also does not disagree with evolution, only abiogenesis; http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=369
also, from Flew (in the latter link); " I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction." (this quote also appeared after the article you linked)
He is also - again - a philosopher, not a biologist. And one who admitted he 'certainly didn't' keep up with theological and scientific developments.
Dr. Wernher Von Braun; again, not a biologist but a (to paraphrase) rocket scientist.
Also worth noting the ages and consequential academic experience (teaching) of these people; born 1936, 1923, and 1912 respectively. So none are actually qualified as biologists, and none have had a modern biological education as a consequence.
EDIT; I note that's not actually any sort of evidence or support. It's just a 'these people have letters after their names, so i'll claim that validates me' type position. Would you trust, say, Einstein to give you open heart surgery?
-
Anyway, I've only got a limited amount of time here; I will probably be back sometime next week.
You all jumped on me when I said "evolution" in reference to snowflakes. I was able to predict that that would be a major issue. I KNOW that it's not evolution; I just made a mistake; you (for the most part) missed my point entirely. (Thanks to the few who actually responded.) My point was that you see complexity in snowflakes. And if they react to some sort of law that makes them that way, why are no two alike? (other than the ones that split from each other)
BTW don't be so quick to flame jr2... I think he may have only been trying to explain things from my point of view (which you did rather well, jr2, thanks :D )
Anyway, personally I think that the whole "Earth is a closed system and entropy doesn't apply" thing is a bunch of nonsense. Show me ONE place where you can throw an ice cube in a cup of water and the water doesn't cool down. If you are correct in your point of view, then to @!!*!# with science! How did they discover entropy? I know that Earth is not an extremely secure place, but c'mon! A meteor crashing will NOT bring more order! ENTROPY APPLIES TO THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!!! :p
BTW the "proof denies faith" thing is bunk...
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
And before you jump on me and say, "That's a contradiction!" listen:
Faith applies to all areas of life. For example I may not have all the evidence for what I believe memorized, and I may not be able to blow away all your arguements, but I know I'm right; I know that the evidence is out there. Sometimes faith is assaulted (by you and others ::) and it HELPS to have evidence.
Please don't waste time responding to that faith bit... you won't convince me; I do have more to throw at you.
Oh, the tornado in a junkyard?
A JUNK PILE CAN'T FLY!!!
Chances of a tornado whipping through said junkyard and building anything that flies is practically nil.
BTW how long does it take to make a fossil?
Just a side note:
Nice to see how FS2 has evolved without any intelligence being involved... (no offense, karajorma, etc.)
What I'm saying is, you could bork up FS2 and guess what? It would no longer be a computer game! It would be meaningless code! If you took millions of copies and applied random changes, you would never get anything like Inferno! There would be little benefitial code and that would be nullified by all the rest! You see what I'm saying now?
Gotta go... will find creationist microbiologists, etc. for you later... Sorry I don't have time to read all your replies right now...
(BTW thanks for the print idea jr2...) :D
later,
m
-
My point was that you see complexity in snowflakes. And if they react to some sort of law that makes them that way, why are no two alike? (other than the ones that split from each other)
When you thow a pair of dice they obey the law of gravity that brings them down to the ground. So why do they always land on different numbers?
The answer in both cases is that minute differences result in a large change in the end result. Crystals grow in one direction instead of another is dependant on the way that the first molecules or atoms to form the crystal happen to stick together. This is in turn dependant on the energy present in the molecules that happen to come across the developing crystal. If they have enought kinetic energy to overcome the attraction of the molecules in the crystal they will stay in solution. If not they will form a bond with the molecules in the crystal.
You want to tell me that all that should happen in a deterministic fashion?
-
Anyway, personally I think that the whole "Earth is a closed system and entropy doesn't apply" thing is a bunch of nonsense. Show me ONE place where you can throw an ice cube in a cup of water and the water doesn't cool down. If you are correct in your point of view, then to @!!*!# with science! How did they discover entropy? I know that Earth is not an extremely secure place, but c'mon! A meteor crashing will NOT bring more order! ENTROPY APPLIES TO THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!!!
Already debunked this.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics simply states "Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.", which in turn means "The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.".
I note you've managed to actually fundamentally misunderstand the 2nd Law 'arguement' (fallacy, really); the creationist claim is that Earth is a closed and thus disordered system (I hope you'll note that the 2nd law doesn't actually say disorder; there is no law relating to disorder). Entropy can actually produce order, such as sorting molecules by size.
Firstly, Earth is not a closed system; we have heat flow to and from space (i.e. solar radiation). This causes differences in local entropy, which is our environmental changes driving selection. Secondly, the universe is both infinite and expanding, as thus is its maximum entropy. Thirdly, entropy is not a barrier to evolution; all evolution needs is a reproductive process, a selection method, and inheritable variation (all processes we can see are not forbidden by natural laws). Fourthly, and finally (I'll let other people pick over the bones), the 2nd law says nothing about organized complexity.
Oh, the tornado in a junkyard?
A JUNK PILE CAN'T FLY!!!
Chances of a tornado whipping through said junkyard and building anything that flies is practically nil.
Debunked earlier. The 'tornado in a junkyard' analogy is wrong in two ways; firstly it provides an incorrect characterisation of chance skewed by human perspective, seccondly it presupposes an existing 'design' which is the only working one.
Nice to see how FS2 has evolved without any intelligence being involved... (no offense, karajorma, etc.)
What I'm saying is, you could bork up FS2 and guess what? It would no longer be a computer game! It would be meaningless code! If you took millions of copies and applied random changes, you would never get anything like Inferno! There would be little benefitial code and that would be nullified by all the rest! You see what I'm saying now?
Complete false and incorrect analogy; evolution is not random, mutation is random. Please see basic evolutionary theory.
-
Nice to see how FS2 has evolved without any intelligence being involved... (no offense, karajorma, etc.)
What I'm saying is, you could bork up FS2 and guess what? It would no longer be a computer game! It would be meaningless code! If you took millions of copies and applied random changes, you would never get anything like Inferno! There would be little benefitial code and that would be nullified by all the rest! You see what I'm saying now?
you know incedently, there have been a number of time's I've had a problem codeing in FSO and the way I solved it was brute force guess and check, if a change I made made the game behave the way I wanted I kept it, if it made it worse I reverted, just pick a semi-random number then see how it plays, this is remarcably similar to how evolution works.
I beleive the best example of this was the cloaking effect I was working on at one point, it got nearly perfict then my computer crashed and I lost it unfortunately.
-
Oh, the tornado in a junkyard?
A JUNK PILE CAN'T FLY!!!
Chances of a tornado whipping through said junkyard and building anything that flies is practically nil.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
OMG m, what the hell is wrong with you?! We all told you the first time round, evolution is NOTHING like a tornado in a junkyard! Why do you think misrepresentation and dishonesty is going to prove anything?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Oh, the tornado in a junkyard?
A JUNK PILE CAN'T FLY!!!
Chances of a tornado whipping through said junkyard and building anything that flies is practically nil.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
OMG m, what the hell is wrong with you?! We all told you the first time round, evolution is NOTHING like a tornado in a junkyard! Why do you think misrepresentation and dishonesty is going to prove anything?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Uhm, I think he meant that to be a response to someone saying that Creationists are presumptive in assuming that we're the only type of being that could have evolved, vs other types (ie, we could have evolved differently). I believe he's saying that, even given that, you still need to be able to fly, so to speak; ie, you must be a viable, surviving lifeform, obviously. And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution. In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.
EDIT: BTW
Nice to see how FS2 has evolved without any intelligence being involved... (no offense, karajorma, etc.)
What I'm saying is, you could bork up FS2 and guess what? It would no longer be a computer game! It would be meaningless code! If you took millions of copies and applied random changes, you would never get anything like Inferno! There would be little benefitial code and that would be nullified by all the rest! You see what I'm saying now?
you know incedently, there have been a number of time's I've had a problem codeing in FSO and the way I solved it was brute force guess and check, if a change I made made the game behave the way I wanted I kept it, if it made it worse I reverted, just pick a semi-random number then see how it plays, this is remarcably similar to how evolution works.
I beleive the best example of this was the cloaking effect I was working on at one point, it got nearly perfict then my computer crashed and I lost it unfortunately.
- Thus Bobboau claims he has no intelligence? :lol:
-
And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution. In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.
I'm surprised you can equate generations of mutation and natural selection to a tornado with a straight face. Shows just how much you have bothered to understand. :)
-
And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution. In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.
I'm surprised you can equate generations of mutation and natural selection to a tornado with a straight face. Shows just how much you have bothered to understand. :)
(emphasis added)
I'm just trying to explain his point of view, since so many of you guys seem too smart to understand it. It's really not that hard to try to understand correctly and (at least somewhat) accurately where another person is coming from and what he's trying to say. Oh, and :) No hard feelings, just pointing that out.
-
(emphasis added)
I'm just trying to explain his point of view, since so many of you guys seem too smart to understand it. It's really not that hard to try to understand correctly and (at least somewhat) accurately where another person is coming from and what he's trying to say. Oh, and :) No hard feelings, just pointing that out.
Understanding it is easy. It's just that it's completely and utterly wrong. I'm pretty sure aldo and others have pointed that out numerous times.
-
In fact, I'd like to follow Kara in asking for people to actually explain why they are right, rather than launch rather erroneous attacks upon a tried and tested scientific theory.
Indeed. I'll never understand why the hell these people suddenly think they've found a hole in one of the best-supported modern scientific theories, and that they've proven thousands upon thousands of scientists wrong and their own twisted beliefs right.
Did a search on ICR- turned this up:.
Today there are thousands of scientists who re creationists and who repudiate any form of molecules-to-man evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creation scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science, and their numbers are increasing rapidly. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation science is "religion". When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies?not their awareness of scientific facts.
Lists of scientists are divided into sections. Choose a list below.
Biological Scientists (http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/) - Physical Scientists (http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_physci/)
1. Why must ICR and other creationist organizations continually appeal to authority by using these types of lists to support their case?
This list and others like it are primarily in response to false claims and appeals to authority by evolutionists. Below are some of these false claims.
"professionally trained scientists, virtually to a person, understand the factual basis of evolution and don't dispute it" - S.J. Gould
"A few so called "creation scientists" are much touted as possessing PhDs, but it does not do to look too carefully where they got their PhDs from nor the subjects they got them in. They are, I think, never in relevant subjects." - Richard Dawkins
"The Institute for Creation Research ... staffed by self-proclaimed 'professors' which lack any discernable credentials in the field within which they pontificate." - The Skeptic Tank
"no real scientist believes in creation" - Anonymous
"all or most creation scientists have bogus degrees" - Anonymous
"no intelligent person believes in creation" - Anonymous
2. Your lists are extemely small in the grand scheme of things. Is that it?
No, this is a small sampling of real scientists from around the world who believe in a literal creation. Nobody has ever taken a comprehensive survey of the world's universities, research organizations, etc. to find out who is an evolutionist or creationist. Whether evolutionist or creationist, most scientists do not get involved in the creation versus evolution controversy. Also, many creationists keep their beliefs secret depending on the situation for fear of discrimination, etc.
3. Why do you list so many scientists who are in fields not related to biological evolution?
The creation versus evolution controversy is not just about biological evolution. It also includes Chemistry, Physics, Geology, real History, Anthropology, Archaeology, Paleontology, Paleoclimatology, Astronomy, Geophysics, etc. It involves many different areas like design, alleged vestigial organs, age of the earth, origin of life, noah's flood, and much more.
4. Isn't "Creation Scientist" an oxymoron?
No. This simply means a scientist who believes in creation. These partial lists give irrefutable evidence that these two words can go together.
5. If these people are real scientists and really do or did work for these big universities and companies, why do they deny that biological evolution happens or call it just a theory when all it means is cumulitive change over time? We see examples of anti-biotic resistant bacteria, Galapagos finches and peppered moths changing, and many other observable examples of "evolution" happening even today
Generally, they are referring to the common descent of all life from a single ancestor, primates and humans sharing a common ancestor, etc. Some have termed this "true" evolution, "vertical" evolution, and "macroevolution" which entails very large steps in morphotype reconstruction. Variations of bacteria, viruses, birds, moths, dogs, etc., which falls within limited expression of existing traits, are also a part of the creation model and thus are not a problem for creation scientists. They observe and study these things like any other scientist. Look for a more detailed faq on the term evolution in our faq database some time in the future.
More to come...
-
I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from... :wtf:
-
And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution. In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.
The problem is that it's still a lot of crap. The analogy you give basically makes out that evolution (the tornado) is random. Evolution is not random. This has been explained time and time again on the thread and to claim that it is shows a staggering lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.
Let me give you an analogy. If I was trying to argue that the 10 plagues of Egypt couldn't have happened and then say that this is because Zeus quite clearly states in the bible that he was going to spare Egypt what would you say about my level of understanding about the bible?
Yet we are talking about an argument that shows a similar level of ignorance of evolutionary theory because anyone who understands even the basics of evolution, understands that while mutation is basically random, natural selection is the opposite of random.
And here lies the fundemental (no pun intended :D ) problem in the creationism vs evolution debate. I've yet to see anyone appear on the creationist side of the argument who actually even understands the basics of evolutionary theory. We get long answers that basically appear to have been copied verbatim from some kind of "How to argue with evolutionists" playbook. And then because the person who wrote that playbook (while probably intelligent and a good writer) didn't understand evolution either then we end up with a blind leading the blind situation.
Do yourselves a favour. Read a good explaination of what evolution is from a scientific point of view and actually try to understand what evolution actually is before carrying on.
-
You know what? **** this. I had the better part of a reply typed up and I've just deleted it. And I'm going to write another long reply explaining why.
If you're a creationist, you're an idiot. And that's not the worst part. Being an idiot is generally not the idiots fault. It's the bad luck of bad combination of genes and upbringing. But now, you're on the internet, and you have access to the single greatest compendium of human knowledge in the history of the world, and yet you still refuse to spend the time to do the simple research that'll show you the supporting evidence for evolution. So, that makes you worse than an idiot. That makes you a willful idiot, an idiot who has made idiocy and ignorance a personal choice. Now, I'm going to repeat that and I'm going to put it into big, bold letters so that if people read one thing in my post, they read this sentence:
If you're a creationist, you're a willful idiot.
There is a mountain of supporting evidence for evolution and no credible evidence for creationism. You should be able to find that out on your own and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince any of you morons otherwise when you're so wrapped up in your own wilfull idiocy and unwilling to srtretch more neurons than it takes to look at the world and seek the simplest, most apparent explaination, or to parrot the opinions of other willfuil idiots around you.
Maybe it's not your fault entirely if you're a willfully idiotic creationist. Chances are, your parents are idiots too. It's likely that your local priest is an idiot, many of your politicians are idiots, and plenty of your peers are idiots. Your culture is probably saturated by media and politically savvy idiots who've dressed up their idiocy and convinced you it has some credibility. It doesn't, and if you were willing to break out of the continuum of stupidity that it the modern Protestant/American creationist culture, then you'd be able to see thast. But you're not.
Prove me wrong. Show me some real support for creationism. Do the research. Check all the theories you pull off Answers in Genesis and the ICR against the fact6s (You don't havew to do your opwn primary research - just use google and wikipedia), then come back and show me. Until then, I'm out.
Now, I'm not backing away from the issue because I'm worried, or my position is in doubt. I'm certainly not worried by jr2s list of wilful idiots (the post I deleted was the first ten or so from each list showing why none of them had any right to be even mentioned in a real evolutionary context). I'm backing away because arguing about it gives it a ligitimacy it doesn't deserve. I'll probably be back, in another thread in the future, roasting some poor fool who pretends to have an original thought, or just generally insulting anyone stupid enough to be a creationst in this day and age. But not this thread. Not until there's a reason for it.
-
I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from... :wtf:
Indeed. I'll never understand why the hell these people suddenly think they've found a hole in one of the best-supported modern scientific theories, and that they've proven thousands upon thousands of scientists wrong and their own twisted beliefs right.
I'm trying to say that there are more than a few people, yes, even scientists who believe at least that God had to have helped evolution along.
I get the general attitude from people on one side of this thread that only morons would believe that we are anything but the product of a long 'let's shuffle the puzzle pieces together until they form a completed puzzle' type of origin. There are some very intelligent people out there who have differing viewpoints. It's fun to argue them. But "their own twisted beliefs"? And they're twisted because they're different from yours, right? Aren't you being a little absolutist, there?
-
...If you're a creationist, you're an idiot ... that makes you worse than an idiot. That makes you a willful idiot, an idiot who has made idiocy and ignorance a personal choice. Now, I'm going to repeat that and I'm going to put it into big, bold letters so that if people read one thing in my post, they read this sentence:
If you're a creationist, you're a willful idiot.
There is a mountain of supporting evidence for evolution and no credible evidence for creationism ... or to parrot the opinions of other willfuil idiots around you.Like you didn't get everything you learned from your evolutionist profs? :hah:
Maybe it's not your fault entirely if you're a willfully idiotic creationist. Chances are, your parents are idiots too. It's likely that your local priest is an idiot, many of your politicians are idiots, and plenty of your peers are idiots. Your culture is probably saturated by media and politically savvy idiots who've dressed up their idiocy and convinced you it has some credibility. It doesn't, and if you were willing to break out of the continuum of stupidity that it the modern Protestant/American creationist culture, then you'd be able to see thast. But you're not.
Prove me wrong. Show me some real support for creationism. Do the research. Check all the theories you pull off Answers in Genesis and the ICR against the fact6s (You don't havew to do your opwn primary research - just use google and wikipedia), then come back and show me. Until then, I'm out.
Now, I'm not backing away from the issue because I'm worried, or my position is in doubt. I'm certainly not worried by jr2s list of wilful idiots (the post I deleted was the first ten or so from each list showing why none of them had any right to be even mentioned in a real evolutionary context). I'm backing away because arguing about it gives it a ligitimacy it doesn't deserve. I'll probably be back, in another thread in the future, roasting some poor fool who pretends to have an original thought, or just generally insulting anyone stupid enough to be a creationst in this day and age. But not this thread. Not until there's a reason for it.
Hmm. I posted that because I was wondering what the response would be. Apparently, you're a convicted moron unless you believe in evolution. Would that be evolution w/ help, evolution atheist-style, or what?
This is a fine example of the attitude I've been sensing on one side. Now, I've been doing some research, and will do much more. But, until then, it's (sometimes but not always) nice to see other's reactions to thoughts/ideas that one is considering, as well as their responses to your questioning of their responses.
-
Quote from: ICR http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_sci_faq
*BS*
ICR = Institute for Creation Research
They are a very conservative group of people who want creationism taught in the schools and are willing to use whatever BS necessary to make that happen. Don't believe anything they say, they are just a bunch of quacks.
-
Regarding that FAQ you posted earlier from the ICR or whatever the f*** it was, it's a complete load. I couldn't read that with a straight face, as it's just so mind-numbingly stupid I ended up somewhat dumber for having read it. The fact that you actually put credence in that load of faeces seriously worries me, and shakes my faith in humanity.
I'm trying to say that there are more than a few people, yes, even scientists who believe at least that God had to have helped evolution along.
Those aren't scientists. Just because they say they're scientists doesn't make it so. Plus, most actual scientists that have voiced their support for creationism have been rejected by pretty much the entire scientific community, and can only gain traction in creationist groups where said groups don't care that the scientist in question has been exiled from the greater community. Hell, even if they are a trained, accepted scientific authority, they're usually not even in a field where they are qualified to comment on the validity of evolution. It's as simple as that, if you're not in a field directly related to evolution, namely biology, you shouldn't be commenting on it. The fact that the ICR FAQ says otherwise, which is completely contrary to all logic, is further testament to how utterly stupid that particular source is.
I get the general attitude from people on one side of this thread that only morons would believe that we are anything but the product of a long 'let's shuffle the puzzle pieces together until they form a completed puzzle' type of origin. There are some very intelligent people out there who have differing viewpoints. It's fun to argue them. But "their own twisted beliefs"? And they're twisted because they're different from yours, right? Aren't you being a little absolutist, there?
No, no no no. You misunderstand the general atmosphere of the thread. To be frank, people don't believe a given individual is a moron for not believing Evolution, people believe a given individual is a moron when they completely disregard the scientific process, all present evidence, and logic altogether to instead put their faith in magic. Take a look at the situation from our perspective; what would you say to someone who was absolutely convinced that there was no such thing as Air because we can't see it, and we are instead living off the divine force of mighty Odin. :rolleyes:
You are not, I repeat, not a moron if you don't "believe" in evolution. You are are moron if you believe in such a baseless piece of theological s**t as Creationism. Let's just review that, you can believe whatever the hell you want to believe, but if you honestly think Creationism is right and every single other possibility is dead wrong, then you are, in every sense of the word, a f**king moron. And just regarding you're dashing rebuttle to BW's somewhat frank statement, you've got to remember that he got his information from credited, trained professors, while people like you get your information from uncredited/miscredited/bias sources. There's a difference.
One last thing, by 'twisted beliefs', I simply refer to the beliefs some people hold that have been twisted from what is generally accepted. Most Christians are content with evolution because they've accepted what's right in front of their face. Even the bloody Pope has voiced his support for Evolution. 'Twisted beliefs' refers to those individuals who will rather believe their own view on the world, a somewhat twisted view to say the least, than what the greater belief actually is. My little speil you've taken issue over is regarding those who simply defy not only logic, but many of their peers in the demented belief that they've found a problem with Evolution that nobody has yet noticed.
Oh, and BW: ...Word. :yes:
-
Hmm. I posted that because I was wondering what the response would be. Apparently, you're a convicted moron unless you believe in evolution. Would that be evolution w/ help, evolution atheist-style, or what?
This is a fine example of the attitude I've been sensing on one side. Now, I've been doing some research, and will do much more. But, until then, it's (sometimes but not always) nice to see other's reactions to thoughts/ideas that one is considering, as well as their responses to your questioning of their responses.
The point BW is making is that whether you believe in God or not is 100% your choice. If you want to believe that God set up the universe so that humans couldn't not evolve then fine. He's God. He has a complete understanding of chaos theory and could easily set up the universe so that everything was predestined and humanity couldn't not evolve.
What makes you willfully ignorant is if you refuse to learn what evolution is and yet still claim it's wrong despite mountains of evidence in favour of it and only the specious arguments and outright lies that creationists dredge up against it.
Furthermore the fact that it is the same crap each time that is brought up is what makes you ignorant. This is now the 24th page of this thread yet people are still bringing up arguments that were discredited on the second or third page.
-
Furthermore the fact that it is the same crap each time that is brought up is what makes you ignorant. This is now the 24th page of this thread yet people are still bringing up arguments that were discredited on the second or third page.
Be patient. 220+ pages takes awhile to digest, even if you've printed it out, and most people don't even bother to read more than a few pages. (At least, it seems that way.)
-
Re: jr2
It's an attitude born of the willful acceptance of ignorance, and the attempt to impose that ignorance on others. One group of people has spent over a hundred years researching the theory of evolution, refining it, discovering and correcting flaws, repeatedly demonstrating it, basing medical techniques and practices on it that have undoubtedly saved lives.
As a result, a number of people have decided to view this as an attack on their beliefs, and attempt to cover it up, or outright unfairly discredit it, based solely on one book whose purpose has nothing to do with science, and the interpretation of which has been repeatedly proven incorrect or inadequate in various ways.
You have not even had the respect to come up with a decent argument to refute the vast amount of work that's gone into the theory. Instead, you spout unrelated bull**** about a hurricane and a junkyard. If that isn't completely disrespectful to the people who have spent years understanding this stuff and condensing it into a readable form for those of us who haven't, I don't know what is.
EDIT: My apologies, apparently it was "m" who was the one who came up with the junkyard thing.
-
Re: jr2
It's an attitude born of the willful acceptance of ignorance, and the attempt to impose that ignorance on others. One group of people has spent over a hundred years researching the theory of evolution, refining it, discovering and correcting flaws, repeatedly demonstrating it, basing medical techniques and practices on it that have undoubtedly saved lives.
As a result, a number of people have decided to view this as an attack on their beliefs, and attempt to cover it up, or outright unfairly discredit it, based solely on one book whose purpose has nothing to do with science, and the interpretation of which has been repeatedly proven incorrect or inadequate in various ways.
You have not even had the respect to come up with a decent argument to refute the vast amount of work that's gone into the theory. Instead, you spout unrelated bull**** about a hurricane and a junkyard. If that isn't completely disrespectful to the people who have spent years understanding this stuff and condensing it into a readable form for those of us who haven't, I don't know what is.
Excuse me; You're saying I have!!!
You guys can't even understand the little fact that I was simply clarifiying for m what he said, as it appeared that some people didn't get it that he was just trying to clarify an issue he had w/ the current 747 analogy and its rebuttal. But maybe you folks have trouble reading or something.
Come on here. I have my own ideas, which I'm not quite ready to put forth in their fullness yet. (It will be a long while b4 you see it, I'm sure.) In the meantime, I like to have a little back and forth on various ideas I'm tossing around. And, if I think I see that someone's post has been misunderstood, I try to clarify. @WMCoolmon, I do not believe I even once mentioned the tornado in a junkyard analogy of my own: I was just clarifying m's post. As for a decent argument, I believe I've got one, but it's going to wait until I check it over quite a bit first, so that you guys will have to chew on it awhile before responding. heh, heh :drevil:
Good grief folks. I would expect more detachment from people that base their beliefs one what they say is the one and only true "science". After all, I'm sure natural selection will take care of all those nasty Creationists for you, right?
Anyways, I do have a bunch of stuff to look over in my copious spare time. <-- HA!
-
Actually if you check back you'll notice that I was stating that even your refinement of m's argument was still bull****. I never said that you believed it.
But seriously though jr2 posting of stuff from the ICR instantly make you look like a creationist. You've got access to the entire internet so why on Earth you're fishing in the gutter for information is beyond me. If you were having a discussion about race would you feel comfortable posting information from a white supremacist site without clearly stating that these weren't your beliefs?
In a scientific argument posting from ICR is about as inflamatory because for all their posturing these people know **** all about evolution.
-
Uhm, I think he meant that to be a response to someone saying that Creationists are presumptive in assuming that we're the only type of being that could have evolved, vs other types (ie, we could have evolved differently). I believe he's saying that, even given that, you still need to be able to fly, so to speak; ie, you must be a viable, surviving lifeform, obviously. And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution. In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.
Ah, but that's equally false because it assumes a singular creation act (rather than the step-by-step selection process) and that there is only one possible end result that works. It also assumes there is a 'desired' end result, i.e. something prederministic like a target, whereas the 'output' of evolution is merely determined by the process. Anything which says 1 event causes X is a false analogy for evolution, basically. It's y steps, selected by z factor, lead to the development of x.
Essentially, it's a deeply, deeply flawed non-arguement, and I regret mentioning it now, because my whole point in doing so was to note that the 'chance' factor only has a meaning determined by human assumption that there is some end-target to be met.
EDIT; as kara said, the ICR is gutter trash, an unscientific propaganda mouthpiece (literally; it was founded as a "Christ-Focused Creation Ministry") that spouts nonsense disguised as science, to defend an indefensible position (that the earth is 5,000 or so years old). In short, exactly the sort of thing that pisses of people with a scientific / logical / rational mindset.
-
Wasn't ICR on that episode of Penn&Teller about this? jr2 should really watch it.
-
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
OMG m, what the hell is wrong with you?! We all told you the first time round, evolution is NOTHING like a tornado in a junkyard! Why do you think misrepresentation and dishonesty is going to prove anything?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Uhm, I think he meant that to be a response to someone saying that Creationists are presumptive in assuming that we're the only type of being that could have evolved, vs other types (ie, we could have evolved differently). I believe he's saying that, even given that, you still need to be able to fly, so to speak; ie, you must be a viable, surviving lifeform, obviously. And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution. In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.
Jr2. You seem as confused as m is. See the part I bolded in you reply, now tell me what youve really changed here? You realy have changed nothing at all.
I'm just trying to explain his point of view, since so many of you guys seem too smart to understand it. It's really not that hard to try to understand correctly and (at least somewhat) accurately where another person is coming from and what he's trying to say. .
I did understand it, for some reason you really really think its a big difference. The change in the meaning is so small its laughable.
I'm trying to say that there are more than a few people, yes, even scientists who believe at least that God had to have helped evolution along.
I know, but that doesnt mean its science. I know lots of scientists that have religious beliefs, but they know thats what they are.
-
wow this argument has colapesed...
as much as I may agree with the sentement calling someone a moron or an idiot is an ad hominem, and it matches with there stawman arguments far too well for my comfort.
-
and a tornado in a junk yard has about as much incomon with evolution as a car does with a forest fire.
-
and a tornado in a junk yard has about as much incomon with evolution as a car does with a forest fire.
It's my fault for bringing it up, I guess. I was just trying to illustrate the stupidity of going 'this has xxx chance of happening'.
-
Look everyone! I can make as convincing an argument as BW!
If you're an evolutionist, you're an idiot. And that's not the worst part. Being an idiot is generally not the idiots fault. It's the bad luck of bad combination of genes and upbringing. But now, you're on the internet, and you have access to the single greatest compendium of human knowledge in the history of the world, and yet you still refuse to spend the time to do the simple research that'll show you the supporting evidence for creation. So, that makes you worse than an idiot. That makes you a willful idiot, an idiot who has made idiocy and ignorance a personal choice. Now, I'm going to repeat that and I'm going to put it into big, bold letters so that if people read one thing in my post, they read this sentence:
If you're an evolutionist, you're a willful idiot.
There is a mountain of supporting evidence for creation and no credible evidence for evolutionism. You should be able to find that out on your own and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince any of you morons otherwise when you're so wrapped up in your own wilfull idiocy and unwilling to srtretch more neurons than it takes to look at the world and seek the simplest, most apparent explaination, or to parrot the opinions of other willfuil idiots around you.
Maybe it's not your fault entirely if you're a willfully idiotic evolutionist. Chances are, your parents are idiots too. It's likely that your local professor is an idiot, many of your politicians are idiots, and plenty of your peers are idiots. Your culture is probably saturated by media and politically savvy idiots who've dressed up their idiocy and convinced you it has some credibility. It doesn't, and if you were willing to break out of the continuum of stupidity that it the modern Darwinist/Evolutionist culture, then you'd be able to see thast. But you're not.
Prove me wrong. Show me some real support for evolutionism. Do the research. Check all the theories you pull off talkorigins.org and the Discovery Channel against the facts (You don't have to do your own primary research - just use google and wikipedia), then come back and show me.
See? I win!!!
You're using circular reasoning:
"Creationists are wrong because the real scientists disagree with them and the ones that agree don't count!"
I can do the same thing:
Evolutionists are wrong because the real scientists disagree with them and the ones that agree don't count!
My guess is that Black Wolf's deleted response probably consisted at least partly of the following:
"Creationist scientists don't count because they went to Creationist universities!"
m: Evolutionist scientists don't count because they went to Evolutionist universities!
"Creationist Scientists argue outside of their respective fields!"
--Unless I'm mistaken, Carl Sagan argued outside of physics, astronomy and astrophysics?
"Creationists lie and distort Evolution!"
m: Evolutionists lie and distort Creation!
Arguments from others include
mefustae:
Those aren't scientists. Just because they say they're scientists doesn't make it so. Plus, most actual scientists that have voiced their support for creationism have been rejected by pretty much the entire scientific community, and can only gain traction in creationist groups where said groups don't care that the scientist in question has been exiled from the greater community.
m: Excuse me, but Damadian invented the MRI while the "community" told him it couldn't be done!
(I know, it doesn't have to do with biology.)
Kosh:
(ICR is) a very conservative group of people who want creationism taught in the schools and are willing to use whatever BS necessary to make that happen. Don't believe anything they say, they are just a bunch of quacks.
I can do that too!
talkorigins.org is a very liberal group of people who want to keep creationism from being taught in the schools and are willing to use whatever BS necessary to keep that from happening. Don't believe anything they say, they are just a bunch of quacks.
Oh, and Mr. Fury?
:snipe: I AM NOT JR2!!! :snipe:
(For everyone else's information, that was in response to an amusing PM.)
BTW I and jr2 do correspond with each other frequently, however.
Gotta go... Curses, I wanted to say more.
'til then,
m
-
like I said that was stupid of him, can we get back to the point now?
or, better yet, m how old do you think the earth is and why do you think that?
or jr2 or someone else on that side sence m seems to only be able to post on every fifth day.
-
I can do that too!
talkorigins.org is a very liberal group of people who want to keep creationism from being taught in the schools and are willing to use whatever BS necessary to keep that from happening. Don't believe anything they say, they are just a bunch of quacks.
m
Your whole point is destroyed by the simple fact that TalkOrigins uses and cites peer-reviewed research. Whereas the likes of the ICR do not use any form of qualified, peer review process to ensure accuracy and, in actuality, work in opposition to the scientific method (trying to draw evidence to support a pre-conclusion). I've lost count the number of times I've seen a creationist 'source' deliberately misquote and selectively edit other scientists work to draw a false and diametric result to the actual one.
This is, you see, why creationism is willfull idiocy. It rejects the basic principles of investigation, in favour of twisting and shoehorning abstraction into a preconceived concluion (and one which creationists can't even agree upon!), and - even worse - makes fallacious attacks upon legitimate, verified and peer-reviewed research. In short, it's an attempt to destroy the most convincing, comprehensive evidence rather than face it.
m: Excuse me, but Damadian invented the MRI while the "community" told him it couldn't be done!
(I know, it doesn't have to do with biology.)
More than one person invented the MRI. For example, Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield were awarded the Nobel Prize for their MRI work. Damadians' work, for example, did not include a method for generating images, and his later work also built upon Lauterbur and Mansfields work. So you're mischaracterising what happened as some challenge of a widespread orthodoxy; no one man can claim exclusive credit for MRI or Magnetic Resonance.
Moreso, and critically, Damadian was and is not trained in evolutionary biology. He's no more qualified to make sweeping (non)scientific statements about, say, geology or biology (he's a young earth creationist, something we can conclusively prove wrong, for example) than I am.
-
Hey m, you going to respond to the arguments now? Will you ever accept all your errors are actually errors?
-
There is a mountain of supporting evidence for creation and no credible evidence for evolutionism. You should be able to find that out on your own and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince any of you morons otherwise when you're so wrapped up in your own wilfull idiocy and unwilling to srtretch more neurons than it takes to look at the world and seek the simplest, most apparent explaination, or to parrot the opinions of other willfuil idiots around you.
Notice that Black Wolf actually bothered to post plenty of evidence for evolution. Evidence that you have pretty much chosen to ignore. You have yet to give any evidence of intelligent design, as opposed to trying to discredit evolution with BS arguments.
-
Wasn't ICR on that episode of Penn&Teller about this? jr2 should really watch it.
sence you brought it up (http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/Penn_Teller-Creationism.wmv)
-
ah! ICR is in there, the guy who thinks the grand canion is evidence for creation. :ha:
-
we need more creationists here
-
Bobboau needs to learn to use the edit button :)
-
they stoped responding I'm bored
-
There is a mountain of supporting evidence for creation and no credible evidence for evolutionism. You should be able to find that out on your own and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince any of you morons otherwise when you're so wrapped up in your own wilfull idiocy and unwilling to srtretch more neurons than it takes to look at the world and seek the simplest, most apparent explaination, or to parrot the opinions of other willfuil idiots around you.
If this is meant to be you parroting BW, you're doing a remarkably poor job of it. There is every evidence of evolution. Ever noticed that if you mix two different dogs, you come up with a mix between the two? Ever wondered why childrens' race is typically the same as their parents? Or why they even look like their parents? Why they may be able to contract conditions from the parents, eg poor eyesight or deafness?
If you've realized that, all you really need to do is follow it to its logical conclusion.
Not only that, but, yes thereis a mountain of credible evidence for evolutionism. There is not such for creation, because virtually none of the people who defend it understand evolution very well. There's an irony in that the major failing of the creationist side is that they have never really evolved their arguments to take into account new information, and the debunking of various misconceptions.
-
Not only that, but, yes thereis a mountain of credible evidence for evolutionism.
Please, please dont say evolutionISM. :wtf:
-
Sorry. :nervous:
-
There is a mountain of supporting evidence for creation and no credible evidence for evolutionism.
Prove it. So far you haven't provided a single piece of evidence for creationism dispite the fact that I've asked you to. All you've done so far is attack evolution.
This is because there is no evidence for creationism that can't be discredited within minutes.
-
and the bible doesnt count as evidence. any wannabe con man coulda written it. at least science journals are peer-edited.
-
Just to be an arse, I'll point out the Bible's been pretty heavily peer-edited too. Several large councils were convened to do just that.
And, of course, if you think the Bible's scary, you should see some of the rejected bits.
-
I'd say this is pretty on topic... it might have been posted some time in the last 25 pages, I don't really know and I don't really care enough to go look.
(http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2006/db060702.gif)
Q.E.D. suckas.
-
Haha! Gary Trudeau is the man.
-
Oh my goodness! NOOOO!!!
Ever wondered why childrens' race is typically the same as their parents? Or why they even look like their parents? Why they may be able to contract conditions from the parents, eg poor eyesight or deafness? (quote from WMCoolmon)
You mean... harmful mutations stay?!! *gasp!*
Hate to say this again, but... footshot. As a matter of fact, I had been going to bring that up my own, but you decided to make it easier for me.
And dogs being mixed results in... dogs.
And BTW... of COURSE
Humorous thought: According to you guys, Noah would have had no trouble with having all the animals on the Ark... just bring a couple amoebae and watch 'em evolve! :lol:
Oh look! viruses mutate and result in... hardier bacteria.
and the bible doesnt count as evidence. any wannabe con man coulda written it. at least science journals are peer-edited.
Then how come it predicts specific events (e.g. the destruction of Tyre; Alexander the Great's empire's 4-way divide, etc.) even though it was written hundreds of years before the events took place? :ha:
What are the chances of THAT happening? :wtf:
Before you say "That was written after the fact!" look up the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And of course the "scientific community" rejects creation. It's made up of people like... like... well, gee, I seem to have forgotten who they remind me of.
The bit about Damadian not being the only person who invented the MRI?
He invented the MRI. (He has the patent.)The first MRI images were of his assistant (Damadian himself was too... um... large). Others copied his work. Guess why he was passed over for the Nobel Prize.
(In case you can't figure it out, it was because he's a young earth creationist.)
BTW I h8 using public libraries that only allow you on for 1/2 an hour...
Be back later...
m
-
This thread is still going...hot damn...
25 pages and I still haven't seen any "Creationism is right because X". Although the mudslinging is making it seem like a political discussion.
-
Oh look! viruses mutate and result in... hardier bacteria.
Viruses and bacteria are two different entities. But bacteria do adapt, they evolve when anti-biotics are used. Quite simply really, the ones that survive the anti-biotics pass on their resistance. So 'hardier bacteria' is evolution, which is generally why we've more recently been seeing the artificial distrinction of 'micro' and 'macro' evolution due to the fact that 'microevolution' is no longer debatable.
...as for "harmful mutations staying" keep in mind that this can be due to recessive genes which take longer to be removed via selective pressures than dominant genes. Similarly something such as poor eyesight or deafness may not necessarily be lethal which also adds to why those genes have not been removed.
When dealing with tool using species such as humans, they become even less of a liability. Someone isn't going to be eaten because they're nearsighted, so those genes are passed on.
It's all common sense really.
-
You mean... harmful mutations stay?!! *gasp!*
Yes, recessive negative mutations can remain within a genotype. In order for a mutation to be selected against, it has to be expressed. If it's recessive, then it's only exprecessed in certain cases, such as the gene coming from both parents.
And dogs being mixed results in... dogs.
Well, new phenotypes of dogs. Albeit hybridisation is really different from mutation (and selection leading to evolution) -in any case.
I mean, by that attitude, there's no such thing as a doberman or a terrier, they're all dogs. No such thing as persian or siamese, they're all cats. Etc.
Humorous thought: According to you guys, Noah would have had no trouble with having all the animals on the Ark... just bring a couple amoebae and watch 'em evolve!
Um, no. Well, not exactly. Evolution is a product of environment and a lot of time, so anything evolving on an ark (which as we know was actually impossible to build anyways) would take both millions of years or so, and be of a body type perfectly adapted to...live on an ark.
Oh look! viruses mutate and result in... hardier bacteria.
Yes, that is a classic example of evolution. Bacteria mutates to have a resistance to a certain strain of medicine, for example; that mutation has a selected advantage, ergo it is able to reproduce into a new resistant form. Classic example of mutation and selection.
(NB: viruses do not mutate to bacteria; both are different type of organism)
Then how come it predicts specific events (e.g. the destruction of Tyre; Alexander the Great's empire's 4-way divide, etc.) even though it was written hundreds of years before the events took place?
You mean because it's been liberally interpreted and translated to do so? Why don't you quote the passages, then? Show us exactly why this couldn't, ooh, have been translated and read to fit known history, ala Nostradamus.
And of course the "scientific community" rejects creation. It's made up of people like... like... well, gee, I seem to have forgotten who they remind me of.
Obviously you've forgotten, given that you clearly have no understanding of basic scientific principles such as evidence-based conclusions and investigation.
Let me remind you. The scientific community is the community of people who have spent many, many years adhering to the scientific method of research and evidence gathering, of peer-reviewed results, and of only drawing conclusions that fit with reproducible evidence. In other words, the same basic principles that have led to just about every major advancement in the last century - plus - of human history (and that's putting it mildly). Seeing as you reject that, you might as well reject all of it's results and go back to living in a cave believing the world is flat.
The bit about Damadian not being the only person who invented the MRI?
He invented the MRI. (He has the patent.)The first MRI images were of his assistant (Damadian himself was too... um... large). Others copied his work. Guess why he was passed over for the Nobel Prize.
Read what I posted previously, and read up on the history of maghnetic resonance imaging.
In any case, he's not qualified to make evolutionary statements any more than I am. Less so, because he's a YEC and that is comprehensively disproven by science.
-
Is this really the best you can do m? I've challenged you twice to prove why creationism is right yet you do nothing but take potshots at evolution. Potshots so easily deflected that you're simply wasting your time and proving that you are completely ignorant about what evolution actually is.
But even if you succeed who says you're right? The Hindus or Buddhists could be the ones who are correct even if you somehow manage to come across a real flaw in the evolutionary theory amongst your flailing about.
Yet again I'm asking you to prove why you are right not why I am wrong.
-
If he actually does try and prove himself correct, I'd like to handle it myself. I've already taken apart that argument once recently.
-
If he actually does try and prove himself correct, I'd like to handle it myself. I've already taken apart that argument once recently.
But I want some fun!
-
Too bad. :p
-
Considering how full the news has been recently with question regarding the Human Mutation of Bird Flu, I'm surprised anyone question evolution. Theres a micro-evolutionary stage that makes the news about once a month. I've even known scientists who make the psuedo mistake of treating evolution as though it led to humans, which it didn't we just happened to be produced by it. I think that's the hardest part of evolution to come to terms with, because it's the most ego-deflating.
-
Ok, I'm getting sick of the way this is going...
Pro-Evolution persons: I understand why you want to try and make creationists see things differently, but you must realize that you can't do anything if the person isn't willing to think logically about your comments. And instead of saying "Prove that creationism is correct" and going on to claim that you're going to debunk their comments within a few seconds, try bringing up one aspect of the debate that is, well, debatable. Get them involved by talking specifically about what makes one side right or wrong.
Pro-Creation persons: Please understand why some of us get so infuriated when someone comes out saying "evolution is wrong, etc etc". If you want to get into a serious discussion about creation vs. evolution, then you are more than welcome to do so. But don't just sit there going "you're wrong, so there!" It's like a childs' argument.
Go ahead and flame me to death if you must. I just had to try to get this "debate" going on a good direction again.
-
watsisname, we had been debating some arguments of m but he seems unwilling to actually discuss them anymore, not that he was doing a good job of that previously. How many times must one disprove the tornado in a junkyard analogy?
-
Fair enough. It just sometimes seems like y'all are just coaxing them out and stomping on their beliefs. I was just hoping that we could do this in a little more... understanding sort of fashion.
Ah well, carry on then.
-
I've been reading this thread for awhile, and have posted once or twice wondering where an arguement FOR creationism was. I was being serious, and not trying to start a flamewar. Honest to God I just want to know what (other than Biblical) evidence there is that keeps being stated as "we have loads of evidence".
-
I've been reading this thread for awhile, and have posted once or twice wondering where an arguement FOR creationism was. I was being serious, and not trying to start a flamewar. Honest to God I just want to know what (other than Biblical) evidence there is that keeps being stated as "we have loads of evidence".
Um.
Well, there's the bible.
And
er....
the
um
thing
Tornado in a Junkyard!
*runs*
Fair enough. It just sometimes seems like y'all are just coaxing them out and stomping on their beliefs. I was just hoping that we could do this in a little more... understanding sort of fashion.
Ah well, carry on then.
Ach, come on. It's (creationism) no different than flat-earthism.
-
Pro-Evolution persons: I understand why you want to try and make creationists see things differently, but you must realize that you can't do anything if the person isn't willing to think logically about your comments. And instead of saying "Prove that creationism is correct" and going on to claim that you're going to debunk their comments within a few seconds, try bringing up one aspect of the debate that is, well, debatable. Get them involved by talking specifically about what makes one side right or wrong.
Believe me. We've done that about a million times before. We're dealing here with people unwilling to even understand the basic premise of what evolution is before attempting to debunk it. Do you really think we're going to have any luck trying to explain something harder to grasp like what the scientific method actually is?
BW put it rather untactfully but he makes a good point. Young Earth creationists are so unwilling to accept that their point of view might be wrong that they don't even attempt to understand the other side. Worse than that they often don't even understand their side of the argument either. I've had several discussions here on HLP where I actually challenged the people arguing that ID was correct to explain what ID actually was. Not one person managed it. It's pretty pathetic that I actually understand ID better than the people who say that it should be taught in schools.
So what can you do against someone unwilling to understand either side of the argument? Surely pointing out the flaws in their own side is better than trying to point out where they are wrong about evolution. These people are working from a playbook of supposed flaws in evolution. No matter how many times you explain why you're right they'll simply pop up with a new (well recycled actually) argument which is supposed to prove you wrong.
You only need to look at m's attitude to see that in action. He claims people have shot themselves in the foot when he posts. His argument is then demolished with good science but he then goes on to make the same claim about some other easily disprovable point.
The only sensible thing to do then is to demolish their side of the argument. I'm simply asking them to actually state their side of the argument first. M has claimed that there is scientific evidence for creation. I'm asking him to state it.
-
Ever wondered why childrens' race is typically the same as their parents? Or why they even look like their parents? Why they may be able to contract conditions from the parents, eg poor eyesight or deafness? (quote from WMCoolmon)
You mean... harmful mutations stay?!! *gasp!*
Hate to say this again, but... footshot. As a matter of fact, I had been going to bring that up my own, but you decided to make it easier for me.
And dogs being mixed results in... dogs.
ARRAaaaa! are you TRYING to be dence?
ok.. traits are passed from one generation to the next, any trait that survives will be represented in the next generation, if eyesight is of little importance to the animal then a mutation that leads to poor eyesight won't have much of an effect on any individual and the mutation will persist, if it infact provides some sort of advantage, like animals that are totaly subteranian, the speciese might eventualy loose the ability to see altogether, you might be thinking "what is the advanyage in looseing sight", if they don't need eyes but they are paying for them in terms of them forming and the metebolic maintainence, then that is waistful, and animals with less developed eyes will have more energy to do other things, like dig tunnels or feel or smell for food.
when a mutation is not benifical at all it won't instantainiusly disapear unless it is extreemly disadvantagus, in birds for instance most birds are extreemly dependent on there eyesight, a mutation that leads to poorer eyesight would not likely survive very long. in humans we live in a society, with a division of labor, if you have poor eyesight you are not likely to join the hunting party, you will more likely become a tool maker or something that doesn't requier keen eyesight, and sence humans are naturaly compasonate to other humans (of there own group) mutations that in most speicese would be lethal tend to linger around a lot longer, exept for mutations that lead to exesive brain damage and they only die out due to sexual selection.
And BTW... of COURSE
Humorous thought: According to you guys, Noah would have had no trouble with having all the animals on the Ark... just bring a couple amoebae and watch 'em evolve! :lol:
well actualy he'd only need one sence they reproduce asexualy, unfortunately, he would need to wait around a few _billion_ years, and then he would have totaly diferen't animals
Oh look! viruses mutate and result in... hardier bacteria.
change that to virus->virus or bacteria->bacteria and you might have a point, a point that suports our argument.
and the bible doesnt count as evidence. any wannabe con man coulda written it. at least science journals are peer-edited.
Then how come it predicts specific events (e.g. the destruction of Tyre; Alexander the Great's empire's 4-way divide, etc.) even though it was written hundreds of years before the events took place? :ha:
no it doesn't
What are the chances of THAT happening? :wtf:
prety good, it's easy to find conections like that after the fact when you are trying to justify them
Before you say "That was written after the fact!" look up the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And of course the "scientific community" rejects creation. It's made up of people like... like... well, gee, I seem to have forgotten who they remind me of.
like people who want to see evidence for something before they accept it, like rational people
The bit about Damadian not being the only person who invented the MRI?
He invented the MRI. (He has the patent.)The first MRI images were of his assistant (Damadian himself was too... um... large). Others copied his work. Guess why he was passed over for the Nobel Prize.
(In case you can't figure it out, it was because he's a young earth creationist.)
I don't know the controversy, but I can tell you that being a wiz at physics and math, or even anatomy will have no effect on your ability to understand biology, by your reasoning if you need open heart surgery you should go to your local meat cutter because both have tones of experience cutting mammals open, or go to a lawer to do it because he has a Phd
BTW I h8 using public libraries that only allow you on for 1/2 an hour...
you know there are free internet providers, jono,webzero,ect... if you have a computer at home you can get one of these, or you can find a diferent library.
Be back later...
m
-
Bobboau needs to learn to use quote tags :D
-
Reposted For Jr2, in case he is still reading.
Uhm, I think he meant that to be a response to someone saying that Creationists are presumptive in assuming that we're the only type of being that could have evolved, vs other types (ie, we could have evolved differently). I believe he's saying that, even given that, you still need to be able to fly, so to speak; ie, you must be a viable, surviving lifeform, obviously. And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution. In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.
Jr2. You seem as confused as m is. See the part I bolded in you reply, now tell me what youve really changed here? You realy have changed nothing at all.
I'm just trying to explain his point of view, since so many of you guys seem too smart to understand it. It's really not that hard to try to understand correctly and (at least somewhat) accurately where another person is coming from and what he's trying to say. .
I did understand it, for some reason you really really think its a big difference. The change in the meaning is so small its laughable.
I'm trying to say that there are more than a few people, yes, even scientists who believe at least that God had to have helped evolution along.
I know, but that doesnt mean its science. I know lots of scientists that have religious beliefs, but they know thats what they are.
-
what? I did...:wtf:
-
what? I did...:wtf:
You call this using quote tags? :D
-
what? I did...:wtf:
You call this using quote tags? :D
yes... :wtf:
-
what? I did...:wtf:
You call this using quote tags? :D
yes... :wtf:
I see! :D
-
what? I did...:wtf:
You call this using quote tags? :D
yes... :wtf:
I see! :D
Can I join the fun too?
-
what? I did...:wtf:
You call this using quote tags? :D
yes... :wtf:
I see! :D
Can I join the fun too?
You'll have to ask Bobboau! :D
-
what? I did...:wtf:
You call this using quote tags? :D
yes... :wtf:
I see! :D
Can I join the fun too?
You'll have to ask Bobboau! :D
The writing is too damn small!!
-
what? I did...:wtf:
You call this using quote tags? :D
yes... :wtf:
I see! :D
Can I join the fun too?
You'll have to ask Bobboau! :D
The writing is too damn small!!
It teh suxxorz!
-
The thread suddenly got heaps more interesting.
-
lets try to modify the tornado in a junkyard argument so it is a bit more closer to evolution.
evolution is sort of like a tornado going through a junk yard then going over a lake of lava wich destroys all junk or colections there of wich don't travle very far and then some of the rest being deposeted in a giant clone-o-matic machine. this clone-o-matic is unfortunately a little querky, only the simplest objects can be cloned with just one copy of the object, everything else needs at least two copies, fortuneately it is holding the whole colection and it just picks the closest two par of objects to make a few clones from, and there can be a bit of diference between them. then the clones get spit back out into the junk yard were another tornado comes and picks them up and over the lava again back to the clone-o-matic, while in flight some damage is done to them wich causes a bit of diference between them, most of the time this damage causes them to fall out of the sky but rarely it improves there flight, those objects that get to the clone-o-matic first have more of them made than later ones, because it starts to run out of energy. eventualy you get objects wich are extreemly good at flying through tornados and landing in clone-o-matics.
the whole cyclical process is very important to the analogy, as is the fact that only the ones best able to fly are the ones given the ability to have more of them made, and the randomness is a rather small part of the story.
-
Okay, you know what? You asked for it; here it is.
Dr Gary Parker
-B.A.,M.S.,Ed.D.
-Member of Phi Beta Kappa
-Recipient of two nationally competitive fellowship awards
-Received his doctorate in biology with a cognate in geology in 1973 from an Indiana State university
-The Principal author of five programmed biology textbooks by John Wiley and Sons
The following discussion was adapted from radio interviews.
Moderator: Dr Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college-level biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist.[/i]
Yes, indeed. The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me. It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe continually progressing toward grander things. Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged.
As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin and salvation. God was unnecessary, or at least did no more than make
the particles and processes from which all else mechanistically followed. ‘Sin’ was only the result of animal instincts that had outlived their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest and perhaps one day the benefits of genetic engineering.
With no God to answer to, no God with a purpose for mankind, I saw our destiny in our own hands. Tied in with the idea of inevitable evolutionary progress, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best.
Did your faith in evolution affect your classroom teaching?[/i]
It surely did. In my early years of teaching at both the high school and university levels, I worked hard to convince my students that evolution was true. I even had students crying in class. I thought I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution. In fact, a discussion with high school teachers in a graduate class I was assisting included just that goal: encouraging students to adapt their religious beliefs to the concept of evolution!
I thought you weren’t supposed to teach religion in the public school system.[/i]
Well, maybe you can’t teach the Christian religion, but there is no trouble at all in teaching the evolutionary
religion. I’ve done it myself, and I’ve watched the effects that accepting evolution has on a person’s thought and life. Of course, I once thought that effect was good, ‘liberating the mind from the shackles of revealed religion’ and making a person’s own opinions supreme.
Since you found evolution such a satisfying religion and enjoyed teaching it to others, what made you change your mind?[/i]
I’ve often marveled that God could change anyone as content as I was, especially with so many religious people (including two members of the Bible department where I once taught!) actually supporting evolution over creation. But through a Bible study group my wife and I joined, at first for purely social reasons, God slowly convinced me to lean not on my own opinions or those of other human authorities, but in all my ways to acknowledge Him and to let Him direct my paths. It is a blessed experience that gives me an absolute reference point and a truly mind-stretching eternal perspective.
Did your conversion to Christianity then make you a creationist?[/i]
No, at least not at first. Like so many before and since, I simply combined my new-found Christian religion with the ‘facts’ of science and became a theistic evolutionist and then a progressive creationist. I thought the Bible told me who created and that evolution told me how.
But then I began to find scientific problems with the evolutionary part, and theological problems with the theistic part. I still have a good many friends who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation, but I finally had to give it up.
What theological problems did you find with evolution?[/i]
Perhaps the key point centered around the Bible’s phrase ‘very good.’ At the end of each creation period (except the second) God said that His creation was good. At the end of the sixth period He said that all His works of creation were very good.
Now all the theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists I know, including me at one time, try to fit ‘geologic time’ and the fossil record into the creation periods. But regardless of how old they are, the fossils show the same things that we have on Earth today—famine, disease, disaster, extinction, floods, earthquakes, etc. So if fossils represent stages in God’s creative activity, why should Christians oppose disease and famine or help preserve an endangered species? If the fossils were formed during the creation week, then all these things would be very good.
When I first believed in evolution, I had sort of a romantic idea about evolution as ‘unending progress.’ But in the closing paragraphs of The Origin of Species, Darwin explained that evolution, the ‘production of higher animals,’ was caused by ‘the war of nature, from famine and death.’ Does ‘the war of nature, from famine and death,’ sound like the means God would have used to create a world all very good?
In Genesis 3, Romans 8 and many other passages, we learn that such negative features were not part of the world that God created, but entered only after Adam’s sin. By ignoring this point, either intentionally or unintentionally, theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists come into conflict with the whole pattern of Scripture: the great themes of creation, the Fall and Redemption—how God made the world perfect and beautiful; how man’s sin brought a curse upon the world; and how Christ came to save us from our sins and to restore all things.
With the Scriptures so plain, are there still many Christians who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation?[/i]
Yes, there are. Of course, I can’t speak for all of them, but I can tell you the problems I had to overcome before I could give up theistic evolution myself. First, I really hate to argue or take sides. When I was a theistic evolutionist, I didn’t have to argue with anybody. I just chimed in smiling at the end of an argument with something like, ‘Well, the important thing is to remember that God did it.’
Then there is the matter of intellectual pride. Creationists are often looked down upon as ignorant throw-backs to the nineteenth century or worse, and I began to think of all the academic honors I had, and to tell you the truth, I didn’t want to face that academic ridicule.
Finally, I, like many Christians, was honestly confused about the biblical issues. I first became a creationist while teaching at a Christian college. Believe it or not, I got into big trouble with the Bible department. As soon as I started teaching creation instead of evolution, the Bible department people challenged me to a debate. The Bible department defended evolution, and two other scientists and I defended creation!
That debate pointed out how religious evolution really is, and the willingness of Christian leaders to speak out in favor of evolution makes it harder for the average Christian to take a strong stand on creation. To tell you the truth, I don’t think I would have had the courage, especially as a professor of biology, to give up evolution or theistic evolution without finding out that the bulk of scientific data actually argues against evolution.
In that sense, then, it was really the scientific data that completed your conversion from evolution, through theistic evolution and progressive creation to biblical, scientific creation.[/i]
Yes, it was. At first I was embarrassed to be both a creationist and a science professor, and I wasn’t really sure what to do with the so-called ‘mountains of evidence’ for evolution. A colleague in biology, Allen Davis, introduced me to Morris and Whitcomb’s famous book, The Genesis Flood. At first I reacted strongly against the book, using all the evolutionist arguments I knew so well. But at that crucial time, the Lord provided me with a splendid Science Faculty Fellowship award from the National Science Foundation, so I resolved to pursue doctoral studies in biology, while also adding a cognate in geology to check out some of the creationist arguments first hand. To my surprise, and eventually to my delight, just about every course I took was full of more and more problems in evolution, and more and more support for the basic points of biblical creation outlined in scientific creationist writings.
Can you give some examples?[/i]
Yes, indeed. One of the tensest moments for me came when we started discussing uranium-lead and other radiometric methods
for estimating the age of the earth. I just knew all the creationists’ arguments would be shot down and crumbled, but just the opposite happened.
In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn’t have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too uncertain and conflicting. Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the professor said something like this, ‘If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith.’ That’s what he told us, ‘keep the faith.’ If it was a matter of keeping faith, I now had another faith I preferred to keep.
Are there other examples like that?[/i]
Lots of them. One concerns the word ‘paraconformity.’ In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting. My heart really started pounding when paraconformities and other uncomformities came up in geology class. What did the professor say? Essentially the same thing as Morris and Whitcomb. He presented paraconformities as a real mystery and something very difficult to explain in evolutionary or uniformitarian terms. We even had a field trip to study paraconformities that emphasized the point.
So again, instead of challenging my creationist ideas, all the geology I was learning in graduate school was supporting it. I even discussed a creationist interpretation of paraconformities with the professor, and I finally found myself discussing further evidence of creation with fellow graduate students and others.
What do you mean by ‘evidence of creation’?[/i]
All of us can recognize objects that man has created, whether paintings, sculptures or just a Coke bottle. Because the pattern of relationships in those objects is contrary to relationships that time, chance and natural physical processes would produce, we know an outside creative agent was involved. I began to see the same thing in a study of living things, especially in the area of my major interest—molecular biology.
All living things depend on a working relationship between inheritable nucleic acid molecules, like DNA, and proteins, the chief structural and functional molecules. To make proteins, living creatures use a sequence of DNA bases to line up a sequence of amino acid R-groups. But the normal reactions between DNA and proteins are the ‘wrong’ ones and act with time and chance to disrupt living systems. Just as phosphorus, glass and copper will work together in a television set only if properly arranged by human engineers, so DNA and protein will work in productive harmony only if properly ordered by an outside creative agent.
I presented the biochemical details of this DNA-protein argument to a group of graduate students and professors, including my professor
of molecular biology. At the end of the talk, my professor offered no criticism of the biology or biochemistry I had presented. She just said that she didn’t believe it because she didn’t believe there was anything out there to create life. But if your faith permits belief in a Creator, you can see the evidence of creation in the things that have been made (as the Apostle Paul implies in Romans 1:18-20).
Has creation influenced your work as a scientist and as a teacher?[/i]
Yes, in many positive ways. Science is based on the assumption of an understandable orderliness in the operation of nature, and the Scriptures guarantee both that order and man’s ability to understand it, infusing science with enthusiastic hope and richer meaning. Furthermore, creationists are able to recognize both spontaneous and created (i.e. internally and externally determined) patterns of order, and this opened my eyes to a far greater range of theories and models to deal with the data from such diverse fields as physiology, systematics and ecology.
Creation has certainly made the classroom a much more exciting place, both for me and my students. So much of biology touches on key ethical issues, such as genetic engineering, the ecological crisis, reproduction and development, and now I have so much more to offer than just my own opinions and the severely limited perspectives of other human authorities. And, of course, on the basic matter of origins, my students and I have the freedom to discuss both evolution and creation, a freedom tragically denied to most young people in our schools today.
Creationists have to pay the price of academic ridicule and occasional personal attacks, but these are nothing compared to the riches of knowledge and wisdom that are ours through Christ! I only wish that more scientists, science teachers and science students could share the joy and challenge of looking at God’s world through God’s eyes.
So there you have it. A biologist who went to a secular university, saw the "mountains of evidence" for evolution (even used it!), yet still became a young earth creationist in the end. Call him a "propagandist for AIG/ICR" if you will, but he used to do the same thing you are doing now.
And of course the "scientific community" rejects creation. It's made up of people like... like... well, gee, I seem to have forgotten who they remind me of.
Obviously you've forgotten, given that you clearly have no understanding of basic scientific principles such as evidence-based conclusions and investigation.
I'm referring to you guys. :lol:
And your arguments against the Bible's prophecies are just as I predicted. Nostradamus made vague prophecies; the Bible's prophecies are more precise, like "Tyre will have its debris scraped into the sea and after it's conquered fishermen will spread their nets on it." (paraphrased) Accurate to the letter.
Oh, lovely convincing argument Bobboau: "No it doesn't" ::)
BTW once again: How long to make a fossil?
And once again, you guys jumped all over what was practically a typo: saying viruses mutate into hardier bacteria was a mistake. Just like when I said that you guys used snowflakes as evidence of evolution. I like jr2's method better: "I think he means this" not "You flaming willful idiot! You don't understand evolution! Prove creation! Spam! More Spam! SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM!!!!!
GRRR... SPAM!!!!!
:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p
There - how'd you like my spamfest? :lol:
BTW thanks for the more accurate (I think; most of you guys really need to take grammar/punctuation lessons) tornado analogy :eek:
Anyway, one last thing to throw at you:
Why the @!!#!! did the skunk evolve its smell? :ick: I would think that that would result in negative mate attraction. :confused:
later,
m
P.S.
i wonder if he'll read it.
His response will be something on the order of:
"Durka durka durka mohammadalijihad!" :p
Mohammed Ali!?!
The BOXER!!??!!
:wakka:
(Ace was killed by a haymaker from Mohammed Ali.)
BTW using dialup this time and it SUCKS!!! :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no: :no:
I Would rather use the same high-speed connection as jr2 does; that may be why Mr. Fury thought I was jr2. :lol: (It's a volunteer organization's line that we both use sometimes; I use the library more because it's on the way home from work [curse them; they changed their hours so they're closed when I get off.] :mad2: )
-
So there you have it. A biologist who went to a secular university, saw the "mountains of evidence" for evolution (even used it!), yet still became a young earth creationist in the end. Call him a "propagandist for AIG/ICR" if you will, but he used to do the same thing you are doing now.
You used a young-earth Creationist to support your point of view. No further counter-arguement needed.
-
Prove creation!
That's a valid complaint. We (i.e. the scientifically minded on this forum) can find plenty of research and evidence for evolution. Can you provide any empirical evidence for creationism? If not, then your arguments against evolution (all of which are of the old, stale, and canned variety) are rather pointless; you don't even have a reasonable alternative!
-
Just from reading the first paragraph of this supposed individual he made one fatal flaw:
Positivism.
The same flaw that led to ideas of eugenics and Social Spencerism (poor Darwin getting the blame for it) about 'bettering the species.'
It's not hard to see how someone into the concept of evolution and technology leading to a goal of perfection being tempted by the idea of an already existing 'perfect being.' Regardless it's a fallacy which is bad science, the selective processes simply occur there is no 'progress.'
Of course, the article here makes the same flaws of claiming scientific observations as 'faith.'
-
a quick look on the internet says the youngest fossil is 10,000 years old.
honestly that seems way too young, but I observed it sevral times, but I could see it as the record holder, generaly I beleive it takes somewere on the order of one million years.
oh, yay random person with leters after his name! woot!
I don't care if a handful of people convert to cristianity after reciveing a doctorate, they are still wrong, the thousand times as many people-with-leters-behind-there-name people agree with me. we have more doctors, so why don't you try to, in your own words, exaplain his argument for creation? if it still relies on twisting facts and lieing then it's still wrong, even if he has a PhD.
-
I have to get up at 5am, it is now 1 am (sorta)... as incoherint as I am, sorry, I just have to pick this appart.
Moderator: Dr Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college-level biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist.[/i]
Yes, indeed. The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me. It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe continually progressing toward grander things. why would you think that? evolution has no 'goal' Evolution was really my religion oh, so you are not a scientist, k, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me well, thats nice, but it clearly shows you aren't a scientist, your someone who likes to have all your thinking done for you, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged.
As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin and salvation. God was unnecessary, or at least did no more than make
the particles and processes from which all else mechanistically followed. ‘Sin’ was only the result of animal instincts that had outlived their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest and perhaps one day the benefits of genetic engineering.
With no God to answer to, no God with a purpose for mankind, I saw our destiny in our own hands. Tied in with the idea of inevitable evolutionary progress or extinction, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best.
Did your faith in evolution affect your classroom teaching?[/i]
It surely did. In my early years of teaching at both the high school and university levels, I worked hard to convince my students that evolution was true. I even had students crying in class. well, your an ass. nice to see you've learnd from your mistakes BTW I thought I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution. In fact, a discussion with high school teachers in a graduate class I was assisting included just that goal: encouraging students to adapt their religious beliefs to the concept of evolution!
I thought you weren’t supposed to teach religion in the public school system.[/i]
Well, maybe you can’t teach the Christian religion, but there is no trouble at all in teaching the evolutionary
religion. science isn't religion I’ve done it myself, and I’ve watched the effects that accepting evolution has on a person’s thought and life. Of course, I once thought that effect was good, ‘liberating the mind from the shackles of revealed religion’ and making a person’s own opinions supreme.
Since you found evolution such a satisfying religion and enjoyed teaching it to others, what made you change your mind?[/i]
I’ve often marveled that God could change anyone as content as I was, especially with so many religious people (including two members of the Bible department where I once taught!) actually supporting evolution over creation. But through a Bible study group my wife and I joined, at first for purely social reasons, God slowly convinced me to lean not on my own opinions or those of other human authorities, but in all my ways to acknowledge Him and to let Him direct my paths. so you got BSed by a bunch of fundies It is a blessed experience that gives me an absolute reference point and a truly mind-stretching eternal perspective.
Did your conversion to Christianity then make you a creationist?[/i]
No, at least not at first. Like so many before and since, I simply combined my new-found Christian religion with the ‘facts’ of science and became a theistic evolutionist and then a progressive creationist. I thought the Bible told me who created and that evolution told me how.
But then I began to find scientific problems with the evolutionary part ah, this aught to be good, been waiting for this, though no were near as much as I've been waiting for any evidence of creationism, and theological problems with the theistic part. I still have a good many friends who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation, but I finally had to give it up.
What theological problems did you find with evolution?[/i]
don't care about theology, skipping
Perhaps the key point centered around the Bible’s phrase ‘very good.’ At the end of each creation period (except the second) God said that His creation was good. At the end of the sixth period He said that all His works of creation were very good.
Now all the theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists I know, including me at one time, try to fit ‘geologic time’ and the fossil record into the creation periods. But regardless of how old they are, the fossils show the same things that we have on Earth today—famine, disease, disaster, extinction, floods, earthquakes, etc. So if fossils represent stages in God’s creative activity, why should Christians oppose disease and famine or help preserve an endangered species? If the fossils were formed during the creation week, then all these things would be very good.
When I first believed in evolution, I had sort of a romantic idea about evolution as ‘unending progress.’ But in the closing paragraphs of The Origin of Species, Darwin explained that evolution, the ‘production of higher animals,’ was caused by ‘the war of nature, from famine and death.’ Does ‘the war of nature, from famine and death,’ sound like the means God would have used to create a world all very good?
In Genesis 3, Romans 8 and many other passages, we learn that such negative features were not part of the world that God created, but entered only after Adam’s sin. By ignoring this point, either intentionally or unintentionally, theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists come into conflict with the whole pattern of Scripture: the great themes of creation, the Fall and Redemption—how God made the world perfect and beautiful; how man’s sin brought a curse upon the world; and how Christ came to save us from our sins and to restore all things.
With the Scriptures so plain, are there still many Christians who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation?[/i]
ookkk... trying to manipulate christians sitting on the fence with guilt, classy
Yes, there are. Of course, I can’t speak for all of them, but I can tell you the problems I had to overcome before I could give up theistic evolution myself. First, I really hate to argue or take sides. yeah, that's why you are a promonent creationist, writeing books and **** When I was a theistic evolutionist, I didn’t have to argue with anybody. I just chimed in smiling at the end of an argument with something like, ‘Well, the important thing is to remember that God did it.’
Then there is the matter of intellectual pride. Creationists are often looked down upon as ignorant throw-backs to the nineteenth century or worse, and I began to think of all the academic honors I had, and to tell you the truth, I didn’t want to face that academic ridicule.
Finally, I, like many Christians, was honestly confused about the biblical issues. I first became a creationist while teaching at a Christian college. no way! Believe it or not, I got into big trouble with the Bible department. As soon as I started teaching creation instead of evolution, the Bible department people challenged me to a debate. The Bible department defended evolution, and two other scientists and I defended creation!
That debate pointed out how religious evolution really is, and the willingness of Christian leaders to speak out in favor of evolution makes it harder for the average Christian to take a strong stand on creation. To tell you the truth, I don’t think I would have had the courage, especially as a professor of biology, to give up evolution or theistic evolution without finding out that the bulk of scientific data actually argues against evolution.
ah, ok, good, the evidence against evolution and for creation are one in the same, joy, well, lets have it
In that sense, then, it was really the scientific data that completed your conversion from evolution, through theistic evolution and progressive creation to biblical, scientific creation.[/i]
Yes, it was. At first I was embarrassed to be both a creationist and a science professor, and I wasn’t really sure what to do with the so-called ‘mountains of evidence’ for evolution. A colleague in biology, Allen Davis, introduced me to Morris and Whitcomb’s famous book, The Genesis Flood. At first I reacted strongly against the book, using all the evolutionist arguments I knew so well. well, you, as a suposed scientist should have looked at the hypoothosis criticaly, rather than reflex argument, but do go on But at that crucial time, the Lord provided me with a splendid Science Faculty Fellowship award from the National Science Foundation, so I resolved to pursue doctoral studies in biology, while also adding a cognate in geology to check out some of the creationist arguments first hand. To my surprise, and eventually to my delight ah, you were delighted, but, yeah, I'm sure you were totaly objective, comeing from a christian school, doubting evolution already because you got talked at by some fundies, I'm sure you weren't just trying to prove creationism right because you had a malformed understanding of evolution that you didn't care to corect, just about every course I took was full of more and more problems in evolution such as...?, and more and more support for the basic points of biblical creation outlined in scientific creationist writings. oohhh.. especaly, such as...?
Can you give some examples?[/i]
yes!
Yes, indeed. One of the tensest moments for me came when we started discussing uranium-lead and other radiometric methods
for estimating the age of the earth. I just knew all the creationists’ arguments would be shot down and crumbled, but just the opposite happened.
In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn’t have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too uncertain and conflicting umm... no. Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. SUCH AS......? Afterwards, the professor said something like this, ‘If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuffwell, you aparently didn't get ahold of it, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith.’ yeah... That’s what he told us, ‘keep the faith.’ If it was a matter of keeping faith, I now had another faith I preferred to keep.
ok, so, what were the problems, all you've said so far was, creationsits are right and evolutionazis are wrong, oh, and there like a cult.
Are there other examples like that?[/i]
Lots of them. One concerns the word ‘paraconformity.’paraconformity: a break in sedimentary layers due to lack of deposition In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting. My heart really started pounding when paraconformities and other uncomformities came up in geology class. What did the professor say? Essentially the same thing as Morris and Whitcomb. He presented paraconformities as a real mystery and something very difficult to explain in evolutionary or uniformitarian terms is it realy that ****ing hard to wrap ones mind about the idea that a regon might no loner colect sediments for an extended period of time, maybe a drought, maybe a river changed direction, or intinsity (causeing it to scour sediments rather than deposit them), or maybe techtonic forces simply pushed that area up and it is not the side of a cliff for a while. oh look, I have solved the great mystery of geology oohhhh..... We even had a field trip to study paraconformities that emphasized the point.
So again, instead of challenging my creationist ideas, all the geology I was learning in graduate school was supporting it. I even discussed a creationist interpretation of paraconformities with the professor, and I finally found myself discussing further evidence of creation with fellow graduate students and others.
What do you mean by ‘evidence of creation’?[/i]
indeed, thia I want to hear
All of us can recognize objects that man has created, whether paintings, sculptures or just a Coke bottle. Because the pattern of relationships in those objects is contrary to relationships that time, chance and natural physical processes would produce, we know an outside creative agent was involved. I began to see the same thing in a study of living things, especially in the area of my major interest—molecular biology.ok, you have a gut feeling, fine
All living things depend on a working relationship between inheritable nucleic acid I sence irreducible complexity molecules, like DNA, and proteins, the chief structural and functional molecules. To make proteins, living creatures use a sequence of DNA bases to line up a sequence of amino acid R-groups. But the normal reactions between DNA and proteins are the ‘wrong’ ones and act with time and chance to disrupt living systems. Just as phosphorus, glass and copper will work together in a television set only if properly arranged by human engineers, so DNA and protein will work in productive harmony only if properly ordered by an outside creative agent. acording to you, yes, the 'it works so well and if you take something away it wont work at all' irreducible complexity argument, just because the current state can't be reduced doesn't mean intermediate steps couldn't be. and besides this particular variation of IC is about abiogenisis, not evolution proper
I presented the biochemical details of this DNA-protein argument to a group of graduate students and professors, including my professor
of molecular biology. At the end of the talk, my professor offered no criticism of the biology or biochemistry I had presented. She just said that she didn’t believe it because she didn’t believe there was anything out there to create life. But if your faith permits belief in a Creator, you can see the evidence of creation in the things that have been made (as the Apostle Paul implies in Romans 1:18-20).
there are people who beleive the earth was made by aliens and they see evidince for this all over in there gut feelings. irreducible complexity has been so soundly debunced it's laughable, but at least we got something presented here
*irreducible complexity*
Has creation influenced your work as a scientist and as a teacher?[/i]
Yes, in many positive ways. Science is based on the assumption of an understandable orderliness in the operation of nature no, science is based on deriveing rules from observation, makeing assumptions is bad, and the Scriptures guarantee both that order and man’s ability to understand it yeah, no need to bother with any of that science stuff, everything you need to know is in the old good book, infusing science with enthusiastic hope and richer meaning. Furthermore, creationists are able to recognize both spontaneous and created (i.e. internally and externally determined) patterns of order, and this opened my eyes to a far greater range of theories and models to deal with the data from such diverse fields as physiology, systematics and ecology. such as 'God did it!'
Creation has certainly made the classroom a much more exciting place, both for me and my students. So much of biology touches on key ethical issues, such as genetic engineering, the ecological crisis, reproduction and development, and now I have so much more to offer than just my own opinions and the severely limited perspectives of other human authorities. yeah, now you can use your science class to prostolatise! And, of course, on the basic matter of origins, my students and I have the freedom to discuss both evolution and creation, a freedom tragically denied to most young people in our schools today. bull****
Creationists have to pay the price of academic ridicule and occasional personal attacks, but these are nothing compared to the riches of knowledge and wisdom that are ours through Christ! I only wish that more scientists, science teachers and science students could share the joy and challenge of looking at God’s world through God’s eyes.
and knowing is half the battle!
so, basicly that whole thing boils down to irreducible complexity, wich is BS, someone else explain to him why, I'm sleepy.
oh, and, no, it does not. prove me wrong. you are the one makeing incredable claims, the burden of proof is upon you.
and yes, my spelling and gramer sucs, I'm very sleepy, and my wireless keybord's bateries are running low so it misses a few strokes, so just deal with it.
-
Okay, stretching back; there are so many points I want to make but I'd best just grabe a few, I know I'm ignoring some, but I'll get to them sooner or later. (Probably later ::) )
This thread is still going...hot damn...
25 pages and I still haven't seen any "Creationism is right because X". Although the mudslinging is making it seem like a political discussion.
Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense. Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along. Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe. So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift. Oh, right. You probably don't. *sigh* The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!". Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened." Cue the mudslinging, please.
Ok, I'm getting sick of the way this is going...
Pro-Evolution persons: I understand why you want to try and make creationists see things differently, but you must realize that you can't do anything if the person isn't willing to think logically about your comments. And instead of saying "Prove that creationism is correct" and going on to claim that you're going to debunk their comments within a few seconds, try bringing up one aspect of the debate that is, well, debatable. Get them involved by talking specifically about what makes one side right or wrong.
Pro-Creation persons: Please understand why some of us get so infuriated when someone comes out saying "evolution is wrong, etc etc". If you want to get into a serious discussion about creation vs. evolution, then you are more than welcome to do so. But don't just sit there going "you're wrong, so there!" It's like a childs' argument.
Go ahead and flame me to death if you must. I just had to try to get this "debate" going on a good direction again.
It would help if m didn't get stuck at the library (30 min sessions) and also would help if he could type faster than 25 wpm :P ... although, at least he can type accurately and spell correctly.
*looks sourly at some forum members*
*dodges a few horribly mangled, half-English looking phrases thrown in his general direction by said forum members*
:lol:
BTW, 25 pages :ha: If you do a print preview, you'll see it's probably well over 220 now. Although with tighter formatting, you could maybe squeeze it down to 150 or so.
Is this really the best you can do m? I've challenged you twice to prove why creationism is right yet you do nothing but take potshots at evolution. Potshots so easily deflected that you're simply wasting your time and proving that you are completely ignorant about what evolution actually is.
But even if you succeed who says you're right? The Hindus or Buddhists could be the ones who are correct even if you somehow manage to come across a real flaw in the evolutionary theory amongst your flailing about.
Yet again I'm asking you to prove why you are right not why I am wrong.
Heaven, err, I mean Darwin ;) help you if he ever disproves it. As I've said, you don't need to prove Creation, if there is no Evolution. creation proves Creation unless explained otherwise (evolution).
There is a mountain of supporting evidence for creation and no credible evidence for evolutionism.
Prove it. So far you haven't provided a single piece of evidence for creationism dispite the fact that I've asked you to. All you've done so far is attack evolution.
This is because there is no evidence for creationism that can't be discredited within minutes.
Umm, that's pretty presumptuous. If it was that flimsy of an argument, it would have been disproven long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away... All I'm trying to say is 'within minutes': I think I can safely say that's baloney. People have hours-long debates on this topic. Week-long seminars are given, on both sides, I do believe. But maybe you meant to say no argument has been brought up in this thread so far that can't be disproven in minutes. I'd still say it's baloney, but it's better than the previous meaning.
About attacking evolution: see argument above.
Just to be an arse, I'll point out the Bible's been pretty heavily peer-edited too. Several large councils were convened to do just that.
And, of course, if you think the Bible's scary, you should see some of the rejected bits.
That's a pretty loaded statement, ngtm1r. Got any proof for that one? You'd best cough some up if you're going to make broad statements like that. (D'uh, quotes will do just fine... I'm not asking you to go out and prove it all by yourself.) Actually, you might want to start a new thread on it and post a link to it here, just to keep the waters (sort of) clear.
they stoped responding I'm bored
Oh ye of little patience. [rant]BTW, does this mean you actually enjoy the arguments, or whatever, taking place here? Then what's with some people's 'tudes around here? Seriously. Try taking all of the nasty attitudes out of all arguments. It'd be much nicer, wouldn't it? You don't think that it makes a YEC's blood boil when he's called an idiot? Hello-o, to be an idiot, in my opinion, you have to do something more simply hold a belief. Maybe 'illogical' would be a better choice.[/rant]
Notice that Black Wolf actually bothered to post plenty of evidence for evolution. Evidence that you have pretty much chosen to ignore. You have yet to give any evidence of intelligent design, as opposed to trying to discredit evolution with BS arguments.
Again, :mad2: could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given? Come on. It's not that hard to figure out.
watsisname, we had been debating some arguments of m but he seems unwilling to actually discuss them anymore, not that he was doing a good job of that previously. How many times must one disprove the tornado in a junkyard analogy?
The whole TIJ argument has been misunderstood, perhaps. Let me re-phrase, whilst trying not to sound condescending:
The argument that TIJ doesn't apply goes sort of like this:
"The argument isn't valid because it assumes that what emerges from the junkyard has to be a 747."
No.
The argument is misunderstood, maybe mis-stated, probably both.
The argument should be:
"Evolution could be likened to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and producing any kind of flying contraption that gets off the ground."
That would be a little bit better, and easier for certain people who can't seem to read between the lines on certain things. No offense, but really, what were you guys thinking? You actually seem to think that ID folks are just plain morons. Disagreement with oneself about an issue, even if the other person is dead wrong, does not make them an automatic idiot. Just the fact that they listen to you, plus the fact that (excuse the references to French) they aren't calling you an effing Darwin-dammed idiot means they have an little respect for you. And then, you squander (waste) it by calling them names.
Lesson 1: If you are in a debate of some sort, it can be likened to playing chess. Using a knife on the opponent only hurts them, and makes them want to hurt you back. It does nothing for your chess game, although drawing one's finger across one's throat before making a hopefully crushing move doesn't really do much harm. People who are attacked by a knife whilst playing chess tend to forget the game and defend themselves, quite possibly, they will attack back *shock!*. Okay. Guess I'd better explain. (I learned my lesson earlier.) The chess game is, obviously, the debate, with moves and countermoves being arguments. The knife is a verbal (written) assault using name-calling or demeaning (putting-down) implications, although, thankfully, with much less damage done to the players, but, unfortunately, with much the same result to the said chess game. Drawing one's finger across one's throat before (hopefully) crushing your opponent could be gloating, mild versions of name-calling in a humor, etc. Some might consider it in bad taste, depending on the circumstances and statements used. Okay. Everyone understand my analogy? Got any of your own? (Don't forget to take mine into your thought whilst giving them.) Oh, good. whatsisname gets it:
Fair enough. It just sometimes seems like y'all are just coaxing them out and stomping on their beliefs. I was just hoping that we could do this in a little more... understanding sort of fashion.
Ah well, carry on then.
I've been reading this thread for awhile, and have posted once or twice wondering where an arguement FOR creationism was. I was being serious, and not trying to start a flamewar. Honest to God I just want to know what (other than Biblical) evidence there is that keeps being stated as "we have loads of evidence".
Um.
Well, there's the bible.
And
er....
the
um
thing
Tornado in a Junkyard!
*runs*
Fair enough. It just sometimes seems like y'all are just coaxing them out and stomping on their beliefs. I was just hoping that we could do this in a little more... understanding sort of fashion.
Ah well, carry on then.
Ach, come on. It's (creationism) no different than flat-earthism.
And your point was? You'd get no further with a flat-earther if you treated hime this way. Although the attitude on that particular post seemed friendly enough. :yes: BTW,
Isaiah 40:21-23 (New International Version):
Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
The Hebrew word there for "circle" means:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1152251618-5397.html
Interesting eh? *looks at ngtm1r*
Reposted For Jr2, in case he is still reading.
Uhm, I think he meant that to be a response to someone saying that Creationists are presumptive in assuming that we're the only type of being that could have evolved, vs other types (ie, we could have evolved differently). I believe he's saying that, even given that, you still need to be able to fly, so to speak; ie, you must be a viable, surviving lifeform, obviously. And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution. In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.
Jr2. You seem as confused as m is. See the part I bolded in you reply, now tell me what youve really changed here? You realy have changed nothing at all.
I'm just trying to explain his point of view, since so many of you guys seem too smart to understand it. It's really not that hard to try to understand correctly and (at least somewhat) accurately where another person is coming from and what he's trying to say. .
I did understand it, for some reason you really really think its a big difference. The change in the meaning is so small its laughable.
I'm trying to say that there are more than a few people, yes, even scientists who believe at least that God had to have helped evolution along.
I know, but that doesnt mean its science. I know lots of scientists that have religious beliefs, but they know thats what they are.
1. Already answered. (comments?)
2. No, its not. Just misunderstood. (Surprise!)
3. You don't think a scientist would have a reason for it? Especially if they switched from being a hard-core atheistic evolutionist? Of course not. The scientist couldn't be that smart, because, after all, he doesn't tow the party line when it comes to evolution, now, does he? The reason the scientist probably doesn't bring the topic up at work are simple: a) it's not his job (most likely). b) he doesn't like to unnecessarily ruffle people's feathers. If they ask, he *might* share his beliefs. This is probably because c) some scientist can have positively nasty attitudes towards anyone who doesn't believe the way they do. (Not just talking creation/evolution here.)
Reposted For Jr2, in case he is still reading.
Tha's laughable. :lol: See? I laughed. I don't have to respond to post to keep track of an argument, right? I just might want to collect my wits and write a semi-intelligable response sometimes. Of course, that spoils some people's fun, as they cannot instantly shred whatever is said without even thinking about the argument, as not much of a counter-argument has been made when little thought goes into it.
*looks hard at some of m's shorter posts*
*flees from red-glowing m.*
what? I did...:wtf:
You call this using quote tags? :D
yes... :wtf:
I see! :D
Can I join the fun too?
You'll have to ask Bobboau! :D
The writing is too damn small!!
It teh suxxorz!
Anyone got a microscope that I can borrow? Never mind, I'll use CTRL+C & CTRL+V.
Okay, I'll take a break now. Respond away, maybe I'll get an answer in before leaving.
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Mmmm.... Let me think uh, no. Post away it is.
-
Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense. Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along. Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe. So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift. Oh, right. You probably don't. *sigh* The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!". Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened." Cue the mudslinging, please.
Again, could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given? Come on. It's not that hard to figure out.
Excuse me?! "Creation is the only conclusion that makes sense"?!! My God you're a presumptuous little bastard, aren't you. I'm assuming you're referring to all mystical creation myths, as the sheer arrogance of assuming the Christian creation myth is the only possbility would simply defy belief, but still... damn that's messed up. It may be hard to believe, but transdimensional aliens terraforming the planet and seeding life here - however laughable - is a far, far more likely theory for the generation of life on this planet than "God did it", and an option the scientific community would embrace with open arms before even thinking about supernatural origins.
And your point was?
Aldo's point was that creationism is as fraudulent and without evidentiary substance as the notion of a flat earth; demonstrated as false time and time again, to the point of being laughable in scientific circles. But you obviously believe otherwise, and I respect that. How about this, let's see some good, hard evidence that cannot possibily have been tampered with by human hands, and i'll eat my hat. Seriously, i've got a nice cap here, and i'll eat it [metal parts notwithstanding]. I guess it's just how I am, I like to have hard, trustworthy evidence before I believe anything, you don't have a problem with that, do you? :)
-
This thread just absolutely refuses to die.
-
I think of it more like a superhero. When it is not needed, it sits as a mild-mannered dead topic amongst the other threads, but when trouble is brewing, it transforms into Super-Thread! Armed with incredibly long posts, scienmotific explanations that even a glass of water could understand, and its perpetual borderline flamewar! Super-thread, keeping the world safe for a better tomorrow... or something.
-
Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense. Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along. Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe. So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift. Oh, right. You probably don't. *sigh* The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!". Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened." Cue the mudslinging, please.
Circular logic. It exists because God created it, and God created it because it exists. Also there's still intelligent design (which is not the same thing as creationism, dammit!) if you manage to knock out evolution. So that's a pair of formal logical fallacies.
And then of course there's the gigantic overarching problem that NOBODY'S DISPROVED EVOLUTION HERE! Whoops. Kinda a salient point you choose to overlook? This whole thing is an informal logical fallacy: red herring.
And last and definitely not least, okay, it exists because God created it.
Why does God exist?
Nothing can morely clearly prove your efforts futile then the unanswerablity of that question. But meanwhile, science has actually finally answered that greatest of philosophical questions. Something exists instead of nothing because nothing is rather unstable.
Umm, that's pretty presumptuous. If it was that flimsy of an argument, it would have been disproven long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away... All I'm trying to say is 'within minutes': I think I can safely say that's baloney. People have hours-long debates on this topic. Week-long seminars are given, on both sides, I do believe. But maybe you meant to say no argument has been brought up in this thread so far that can't be disproven in minutes. I'd still say it's baloney, but it's better than the previous meaning.
Actually, it's not. Allow me to disprove Genesis: fossil record. Allow me to disprove the Flood: fossil record.
So either everyone else is really damn stupid and I'm the only one with an IQ above room temperature, or it is disproveable in minutes. Nay, in seconds.
That's a pretty loaded statement, ngtm1r. Got any proof for that one? You'd best cough some up if you're going to make broad statements like that. (D'uh, quotes will do just fine... I'm not asking you to go out and prove it all by yourself.) Actually, you might want to start a new thread on it and post a link to it here, just to keep the waters (sort of) clear.
Sure. As anyone who's read The Da Vinci Code knows, there are other Gospels that did not make the cut (because Mr. Brown keeps citing one that didn't, and pretends it did). Large portions of Acts were excised. I don't have my copy of Pagans and Christians handy at the moment to get into gory detail, but off the top of my head I can cite a passage where Paul supposedly claimed it was better to be paralyzed then raped as having gotten the chop.
Isaiah 40:21-23 (New International Version):
Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
The Hebrew word there for "circle" means:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1152251618-5397.html
Interesting eh? *looks at ngtm1r*
Perhaps you'd better make yourself more clear. Because it's a pretty and totally irrevelant quote.
-
Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense. Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along. Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe. So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift. Oh, right. You probably don't. *sigh* The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!". Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened." Cue the mudslinging, please.
Everyone used to believe the world was flat until people like Plato, Aristotle, etc demonstrated it wasn't (actually, that's a slight lie; the Vedic scrolls from India described a spherical earth orbiting the sun thousands of years before that)
Except it wouldn't be proof of creation any more than a shipwreck was proof the world had edges. Moreso, creation is the barest form of 'ergo, it just happened'; it doesn't even attempt to explain complexity (something evolution does very well).
Moreso, evolution doesn't even touch on the areas of 'creation' because it deals with the evolution of lifes complexity, not the formation of life or the universe (abiogenesis and the big bang / physics cover this) in any case.
What you're actually saying is, that if A happens, then B must be justified by it, regardless of what B is.
EDIT;
as pointed out, let's say evolution is disproven, even though it never has been and no-one has even come close to it (yay for rational evidence based science!).
Let's say we have 'creation', then. What created 'God'? Ok, let's say 'god always existed' to skip that rather important question..... then why not say 'the universe always existed', and who needs God? Ergo, no God! For goodness sake, God makes it more complicated than the universe just existing, after all. So I guess the universes' existence disproves God by your form of bizarre logic.
Heaven, err, I mean Darwin help you if he ever disproves it. As I've said, you don't need to prove Creation, if there is no Evolution. creation proves Creation unless explained otherwise (evolution).
Again, you've forgotton what evolution is; technically you need to disprove abiogenesis and physics. And even then, it's ludicrous that this would 'prove' creation; did the absence of an explanation for gravity for all those years, mean it was Intelligent Falling?
All you'd have is the absence of an explanation; the thing that led to the invention of creation myths, and the thing which science has tackled.
Umm, that's pretty presumptuous. If it was that flimsy of an argument, it would have been disproven long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away... All I'm trying to say is 'within minutes': I think I can safely say that's baloney. People have hours-long debates on this topic. Week-long seminars are given, on both sides, I do believe. But maybe you meant to say no argument has been brought up in this thread so far that can't be disproven in minutes. I'd still say it's baloney, but it's better than the previous meaning.
About attacking evolution: see argument above.
It's easily disproven. Easily. The problem is not evidence, it's faith. Churches, ID protagonists propagate the image of evolution as anti-religious, immoral, etc, and attack it using irrational arguements; we've seen it here - you're still doing it, in fact, continuously failing to understand the bounds of evolutionary theory.
In fact, every ID/creationist arguement I've seen in this thread so far has been characterised by a lack of understanding and hence mischaracterisation of how evolutionary theory works.
Oh ye of little patience. [rant]BTW, does this mean you actually enjoy the arguments, or whatever, taking place here? Then what's with some people's 'tudes around here? Seriously. Try taking all of the nasty attitudes out of all arguments. It'd be much nicer, wouldn't it? You don't think that it makes a YEC's blood boil when he's called an idiot? Hello-o, to be an idiot, in my opinion, you have to do something more simply hold a belief. Maybe 'illogical' would be a better choice.[/rant]
I enjoy the arguements. I'm sick of this ****, it's literally seeking to hold back the advancement of humanitys' understanding of the world because some narrow-minded, undereducated preacher believes a theory they don't understand threatens their power...sorry, donation base.
Again, could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given? Come on. It's not that hard to figure out.
(ach! abiogenesis, abiogenesis, abiogenesis.....)
No. All it would mean would be another origin is required for complexity.
That you can't think of one besides evolution demonstrates rather well how it is by far the best evidenced and logical - rational - theory.
The whole TIJ argument has been misunderstood, perhaps. Let me re-phrase, whilst trying not to sound condescending:
The argument that TIJ doesn't apply goes sort of like this:
"The argument isn't valid because it assumes that what emerges from the junkyard has to be a 747."
No.
The argument is misunderstood, maybe mis-stated, probably both.
The argument should be:
"Evolution could be likened to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and producing any kind of flying contraption that gets off the ground."
Except that's still wrong, because it characterises evolution as a single, random chance event. And evolution is a multi-staged event with a random differentiation action and deterministic natural selection events.
It also assumes that a flying machine is the only output that 'works', which is again wrong.
That would be a little bit better, and easier for certain people who can't seem to read between the lines on certain things. No offense, but really, what were you guys thinking? You actually seem to think that ID folks are just plain morons. Disagreement with oneself about an issue, even if the other person is dead wrong, does not make them an automatic idiot. Just the fact that they listen to you, plus the fact that (excuse the references to French) they aren't calling you an effing Darwin-dammed idiot means they have an little respect for you. And then, you squander (waste) it by calling them names.
Lesson 1: If you are in a debate of some sort, it can be likened to playing chess. Using a knife on the opponent only hurts them, and makes them want to hurt you back. It does nothing for your chess game, although drawing one's finger across one's throat before making a hopefully crushing move doesn't really do much harm. People who are attacked by a knife whilst playing chess tend to forget the game and defend themselves, quite possibly, they will attack back *shock!*. Okay. Guess I'd better explain. (I learned my lesson earlier.) The chess game is, obviously, the debate, with moves and countermoves being arguments. The knife is a verbal (written) assault using name-calling or demeaning (putting-down) implications, although, thankfully, with much less damage done to the players, but, unfortunately, with much the same result to the said chess game. Drawing one's finger across one's throat before (hopefully) crushing your opponent could be gloating, mild versions of name-calling in a humor, etc. Some might consider it in bad taste, depending on the circumstances and statements used. Okay. Everyone understand my analogy? Got any of your own? (Don't forget to take mine into your thought whilst giving them.) Oh, good. whatsisname gets it:
Oh, bollocks. This isn't a debate. A debate implies some sort of issue of truth or uncertainty to be debated. this is, or should be, teaching. Because time and time again it's so bloody obvious - you don't understand evolution! I'm sorry, but it's true; you can see it above this very paragraph.
And your point was? You'd get no further with a flat-earther if you treated hime this way. Although the attitude on that particular post seemed friendly enough. BTW,
That rationality trumps making **** up any day of the week.
NB: hhug does mean both sphere and circle, however a quick analysis of multiple bits of Genesis makes it pretty evidence the reference was to circle or more specifically 'cylinder', which matches with the predominant Egyptian and Hebrew creation myths of the time (namely, 'earth' as a circular landmass, surrounded by water).
for example, passages about the earth being set apart from the water, and the earth (same earth) being fixed on foundations and immobile, etc. It's pretty evident of the mythological origins, and if you search about, you'll find we've had this little debate (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35524.msg738306.html#msg738306) before.
-
Oh my goodness. Just when I thought it couldn't be misunderstood, I am amazed again. Some of you folks from a different planet or something? You're not following my train of thought very well, and I don't know why.
Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense. Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along. Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe. So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift. Oh, right. You probably don't. *sigh* The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!". Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened." Cue the mudslinging, please.
Again, could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given? Come on. It's not that hard to figure out.
Excuse me?! "Creation is the only conclusion that makes sense"?!! My God you're a presumptuous little bastard, aren't you. I'm assuming you're referring to all mystical creation myths, as the sheer arrogance of assuming the Christian creation myth is the only possbility would simply defy belief, but still... damn that's messed up. It may be hard to believe, but transdimensional aliens terraforming the planet and seeding life here - however laughable - is a far, far more likely theory for the generation of life on this planet than "God did it", and an option the scientific community would embrace with open arms before even thinking about supernatural origins. Yes, that would be their main problem. They are supposed to consider everything in an unbiased, unemotionally affected way. But they don't. Your argument about aliens creating life is moot. 'There was once a speaker who gave a lecture in which he stated that the Terra was suspended in space with nothing supporting it. Afterwards a lady came up to him and said, "You know, you're very wrong about that." "Okay, lady," says the speaker, "Tell me what the Earth is supported on, then!" "On the back of a turtle." she replied. "Umm, I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question in mind." the speaker said. "You see, the turtle would have to be suspended on nothing then." "Oh, you may think you're clever, young man." the lady replied, "But it's turtles all the way down!"' Do you follow my logic? If aliens created life, you've got the same problem once removed. If aliens created the aliens, it's second removed, etc, etc. There must be an ultimate cause, whether it's the Big Bang, or an eternally pre-existing (or existing outside of time, possibly even creating time) creator of some type. I never said that "Creation is the only conclusion that makes sense" - You're quoting me out of context. I said, Creation without evolution to explain the universe away is the only conclusion that makes sense. Of course, I should have appended, "to the question, 'How did we get here?'" You guys are really, really good at finding small ommisions or errors in someone's statement, but absolutely no good at correctly supposing and suggesting what the person really meant to say or possibly meant to say, or so it seems at least.
And your point was?
Aldo's point was that creationism is as fraudulent and without evidentiary substance as the notion of a flat earth; demonstrated as false time and time again, to the point of being laughable in scientific circles. But you obviously believe otherwise, and I respect that. How about this, let's see some good, hard evidence that cannot possibily have been tampered with by human hands, and i'll eat my hat. Seriously, i've got a nice cap here, and i'll eat it [metal parts notwithstanding]. I guess it's just how I am, I like to have hard, trustworthy evidence before I believe anything, you don't have a problem with that, do you? :)
Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense. Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along. Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe. So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift. Oh, right. You probably don't. *sigh* The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!". Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened." Cue the mudslinging, please.
Circular logic. It exists because God created it, and God created it because it exists. I don't even want to know where you pulled that argument from. :wtf: We know it exists because we can observe it all around us, and logically, one would assume that it came from somewhere, or at least I would hope so - if you feel that our surroundings have always been this way, and have never existed in a different state, well, you're entitled to your opinion, I suppose. You folks don't seem to get the logic behind If it didn't just happen, someone put it there.[/i] That is why no argument is needed to 'prove' creation; It is self-evident, unless one can logically explain how it came to be without someone to put it there.Also there's still intelligent design (which is not the same thing as creationism, dammit!) No kidding, what exactly 'are you on about'? if you manage to knock out evolution. So that's a pair of formal logical fallacies.
And then of course there's the gigantic overarching problem that NOBODY'S DISPROVED EVOLUTION HERE! I kind of want to lay some groundwork before I would dare to claim I had done that. Maybe by page 50 or so, I'll end with a succession of quotes and throw in the towel for awhile, but there will always be questions. I never said I disproved evolution, I was just responding to the ever-repeated rant "We have proof for what you believe, where's yours?" To which I would respond, "If I destroy your proof, mine's the only one left, and it's self-evident." (And it was around first :p )Whoops. Kinda a salient point you choose to overlook? This whole thing is an informal logical fallacy: red herring. No it's not, apparently you can't answer more than one topic at a time without people getting all confused :confused: <- portrait of ngtm1r :lol: *runs*
And last and definitely not least, okay, it exists because God created it.
Why does God you exist? Said the clay to the potter. "Because I made you." replied the potter. ::)
Nothing can morely clearly prove your efforts futile then the unanswerablity of that question. See above and eat chocolate pie (see, I'm nice ;) ) But meanwhile, science has actually finally answered that greatest of philosophical questions. Something exists instead of nothing because nothing is rather unstable. Come again? That sounds a whole lot like an argument that is quite undefensible. It exists because the Universe is sentient, and doesn't like unstable environments. So >poof!< we have something from nothing, which then became compressed (somehow) into a dot smaller than a period, smaller than an atom, perhaps even nothing at all (I do believe I actually heard that once) and then exploded. Okay, whatever. ::)
Umm, that's pretty presumptuous. If it was that flimsy of an argument, it would have been disproven long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away... All I'm trying to say is 'within minutes': I think I can safely say that's baloney. People have hours-long debates on this topic. Week-long seminars are given, on both sides, I do believe. But maybe you meant to say no argument has been brought up in this thread so far that can't be disproven in minutes. I'd still say it's baloney, but it's better than the previous meaning.
Actually, it's not. Allow me to disprove Genesis: fossil record. Allow me to disprove the Flood: fossil record. Allow me to prove Genesis: fossil record. Allow me to prove the Flood: fossil record. [Arnold]I'll be back. You've made a big mistake.[/Arnold] I'll explain that (perhaps quite a while) later (week or two?).
So either everyone else is really damn stupid and I'm the only one with an IQ above room temperature, or it is disproveable in minutes. Nay, in seconds. Dream on. You really think that you're smarter than all those people who debate this topic all the time? The opposing side doesn't take seconds or minutes; it takes hours, and when it's done, they still can't agree on that subject.
That's a pretty loaded statement, ngtm1r. Got any proof for that one? You'd best cough some up if you're going to make broad statements like that. (D'uh, quotes will do just fine... I'm not asking you to go out and prove it all by yourself.) Actually, you might want to start a new thread on it and post a link to it here, just to keep the waters (sort of) clear.
Sure. As anyone who's read The Da Vinci Code knows, there are other Gospels that did not make the cut (because Mr. Brown keeps citing one that didn't, and pretends it did). Large portions of Acts were excised. I don't have my copy of Pagans and Christians handy at the moment to get into gory detail, but off the top of my head I can cite a passage where Paul supposedly claimed it was better to be paralyzed then raped as having gotten the chop. I do believe you are refering to quite a few ~1500 year old myths, long disproven. This is why fundamentalists get worked up over The Da Vinci Code: it's a pack of mis-truths and half-truths and out of context research disproven millenia ago. I will have to get back on the specifics on this one. For now, suffice it to say, millions of people have died for their belief in the truths outlined in the Bible (including Paul & all except one of the other apostles). Wonder what they were on. Oh, wait. Maybe they were eyewitnesses and really knew that they were right.
Isaiah 40:21-23 (New International Version):
Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
The Hebrew word there for "circle" means:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1152251618-5397.html
Interesting eh? *looks at ngtm1r*
Perhaps you'd better make yourself more clear. Because it's a pretty and totally irrevelant quote. I can just feel the :confused: look on your face. I forgot to quote your text that that was in response to. You actually think that I made a totally errelevant quote? Didn't even bother to switch on a few gray cells out of your vast millions (not being sarcastic, it's true, we both know it) to go looking for what it might be that I 'was on about'? I know you're probably smart. Use it. ;)
Ach, come on. It's (creationism) no different than flat-earthism.
You see? I simply mistook the author of that argument and forgot to quote it (which would have solved the author problem anyways). I thought that the flat-earth thing yours, not aldo's. The thing is, people often ridicule others who literally believe the Bible as 'flat-earthers', thinking that way back in the day, people believed the earth was flat because the Bible said so, until science disproved the idea. Nope. the Bible, in Isaiah, states that the Earth is round, thousands of years before they were supposed to have come up with the idea. Actually, the fact is, people back then weren't as dumb as you'd think. And the Bible is accurate on this score. Got any more false notions for me to disprove? (aldo or ngtm1r ;) )
Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense. Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along. Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe. So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift. Oh, right. You probably don't. *sigh* The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!". Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened." Cue the mudslinging, please.
Everyone used to believe the world was flat until people like Plato, Aristotle, etc demonstrated it wasn't (actually, that's a slight lie; the Vedic scrolls from India described a spherical earth orbiting the sun thousands of years before that) except the Jews and later Christians who actually believed their Bibles, you mean.
Except it wouldn't be proof of creation any more than a shipwreck was proof the world had edges. Moreso, creation is the barest form of 'ergo, it just happened'; it doesn't even attempt to explain complexity (something evolution does very well). God made the world complex because he wanted to? Yeesh. You'd think that to be God, you have to conform to aldo's notion of him. Or was that the whole point?
Moreso, evolution doesn't even touch on the areas of 'creation' because it deals with the evolution of lifes complexity, not the formation of life or the universe (abiogenesis and the big bang / physics cover this) in any case. If you believe the current theory, Evolution had to deal with what the Big Bang and physics handed it, didn't it? Or did it get a free pass?
What you're actually saying is, that if A happens, then B must be justified by it, regardless of what B is. No. I'm afraid you don't seem to realize that if I tried to cover all arguments at once, you'd probably have 10 or so back-to-back posts from me. Usually it helps to move in a sort of chronological fasion through events in a theory of how the universe formed, right? I'm just winding up here. Watch out.
EDIT;
as pointed out, let's say evolution is disproven, even though it never has been and no-one has even come close to it (yay for rational evidence based science!). misinterpreted evidence based faith, you mean. ;) Hey! Put that flamethrower down! What are you doing?!
*hops quickly into his Pyro-GX*
*presses 5 before holding down his trigger*
;7 :drevil:
Let's say we have 'creation', then. What created 'God'? Ok, let's say 'god always existed' to skip that rather important question..... then why not say 'the universe always existed', and who needs God? Ergo, no God! For goodness sake, God makes it more complicated than the universe just existing, after all. So I guess the universes' existence disproves God by your form of bizarre logic. God always was. You were actually expecting Him to be formed somehow? According to the Bible, he spoke and it "was so". The problem with the universe always existing is that it would have to create itself from nothing. Let sort of rephrase this: What created the Universe? 'the universe always existed' OK, so now that we've established that this period of creation/big bang/evolution/whatever requires faith no matter which side you're on. You actually think it requires more faith to think that God created the universe than to think that the universe created the universe? Ok, fine by me. This is where the evolutionary 'morals' refered to come in: If there's no point, no purpose, we might as well have the best smashingest party while we can by any means necessary, because eventually, we're gonna croak. No need to research or develop anything. Sure, it might make you able to party a few more years, but in the big picture, what's it really matter after you've ceased existing? Who the heck would care? Life is purposeless, enjoy it? Whereas if you believe that there are rules you need to follow in life, and that you will be held accountable for your actions, you tend to behave a bit better. And if you believe that you and your race really, really screwed things up on their one chance of having it easy, the way things were meant to be (hey, how hard would it be to live with only one rule: don't eat from that tree) and that they were condemned to eventually die because of that choice, made corporately as a race and individually as people, and that God still loved your race enough to sacrifice Himself in the form of His Son so that you'd have a chance to accept his free payment for your breaking of His rules, you would tend to act really, really well behaved, just because you really appreciate what He's done for you. There. I think I've summarized the morals from all three views: atheistic evolution, deistic evolution and/or creation, and Biblical Christian Creationism.
Heaven, err, I mean Darwin help you if he ever disproves it. As I've said, you don't need to prove Creation, if there is no Evolution. creation proves Creation unless explained otherwise (evolution).
Again, you've forgotton what evolution is; technically you need to disprove abiogenesis and physics. And even then, it's ludicrous that this would 'prove' creation; did the absence of an explanation for gravity for all those years, mean it was Intelligent Falling? I'd have to disprove physics? That field was around before evolution and was invented by Bible-believing scientists, I'm afraid. But are you admitting there is no rational explanation of the design in nature that excludes God? (Of course not. But it sounded like it.)
All you'd have is the absence of an explanation; the thing that led to the invention of creation myths, and the thing which science has tackled. So the creation theory isn't an explaination? It's one you can't scientifically prove, being that no one was there (same goes for evolution, I'm afraid... you could be 99.999% sure, but never prove it), but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation. To prove that God's word is accurate, one might think miracles, fulfilled prophesies, and eyewitnesses willing to die for their testimony and beliefs might come in handy. >gosh!< I'll have to put a few of those out here for you later.
Umm, that's pretty presumptuous. If it was that flimsy of an argument, it would have been disproven long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away... All I'm trying to say is 'within minutes': I think I can safely say that's baloney. People have hours-long debates on this topic. Week-long seminars are given, on both sides, I do believe. But maybe you meant to say no argument has been brought up in this thread so far that can't be disproven in minutes. I'd still say it's baloney, but it's better than the previous meaning.
About attacking evolution: see argument above.
It's easily disproven. Easily. The problem is not evidence, it's faith. Churches, ID protagonists propagate the image of evolution as anti-religious, immoral, etc, and attack it using irrational arguements; we've seen it here - you're still doing it, in fact, continuously failing to understand the bounds of evolutionary theory. the bounds of evolutionary theory, summed up in four words: God didn't do it! EDIT: Summed up in four words plus a contraction. Sorry.
In fact, every ID/creationist arguement I've seen in this thread so far has been characterised by a lack of understanding and hence mischaracterisation of how evolutionary theory works. We know how it supposedly works. And because we have a problem with that, we don't understand it? "You can't understand it unless you believe it" sort of thing? I do believe there have been multiple misunderstandings on both sides[/i].
Oh ye of little patience. [rant]BTW, does this mean you actually enjoy the arguments, or whatever, taking place here? Then what's with some people's 'tudes around here? Seriously. Try taking all of the nasty attitudes out of all arguments. It'd be much nicer, wouldn't it? You don't think that it makes a YEC's blood boil when he's called an idiot? Hello-o, to be an idiot, in my opinion, you have to do something more simply hold a belief. Maybe 'illogical' would be a better choice.[/rant]
I enjoy the arguements. I'm sick of this ****, it's literally seeking to hold back the advancement of humanitys' understanding of the world because some narrow-minded, undereducated preacher believes a theory they don't understand threatens their power...sorry, donation base. Same could be said for profs whose sole job is to prove or research evolution. Also, the same could be said of other scientific advancements: 'We're being held back because instead of searching out new discoveries that were put into existense by God, we're looking for discoveries that happened by accident". It just depends on who's really right. Because, whichever side is true (I'll hold my obvious opinion out) would be the side that could logically search out advancements more easily than the other.
Again, could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given? Come on. It's not that hard to figure out.
(ach! abiogenesis, abiogenesis, abiogenesis.....) Here's a clue: the formation of the first life, according to Darwin, et al. was a product of evolutionary process. Period. Look it up in one of your textbooks. Oh, and while you're at it, define life. Off-hand, I'd say that once something has the potential to reproduce itself, it definitely has life. Scientifically speaking, mind you. I'm not talking about humans, and even if I was, an animal or human that for some reason had a wonderful mutation and couldn't reproduce is still made of billions of living cells that reproduce.
No. All it would mean would be another origin is required for complexity.
That you can't think of one besides evolution demonstrates rather well how it is by far the best evidenced and logical - rational - theory. Challenge: come up with a theory besides "it was created" (by whatever means) or "it just happened". You can't, because there aren't any.
The whole TIJ argument has been misunderstood, perhaps. Let me re-phrase, whilst trying not to sound condescending:
The argument that TIJ doesn't apply goes sort of like this:
"The argument isn't valid because it assumes that what emerges from the junkyard has to be a 747."
No.
The argument is misunderstood, maybe mis-stated, probably both.
The argument should be:
"Evolution could be likened to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and producing any kind of flying contraption that gets off the ground."
Except that's still wrong, because it characterises evolution as a single, random chance event. And evolution is a multi-staged event with a random differentiation action and deterministic natural selection events. This fellow needs a little help. He thinks tornadoes are single staged and happen instantaniously. jk, I know what you mean, but you know what I mean by that statement previous too.
It also assumes that a flying machine is the only output that 'works', which is again wrong. Actually, a flying machine would be a bit less complex than a self-reproducing, self-sufficient machine. But, then again, Tornadoes don't last as long.
That would be a little bit better, and easier for certain people who can't seem to read between the lines on certain things. No offense, but really, what were you guys thinking? You actually seem to think that ID folks are just plain morons. Disagreement with oneself about an issue, even if the other person is dead wrong, does not make them an automatic idiot. Just the fact that they listen to you, plus the fact that (excuse the references to French) they aren't calling you an effing Darwin-dammed idiot means they have an little respect for you. And then, you squander (waste) it by calling them names.
Lesson 1: If you are in a debate of some sort, it can be likened to playing chess. Using a knife on the opponent only hurts them, and makes them want to hurt you back. It does nothing for your chess game, although drawing one's finger across one's throat before making a hopefully crushing move doesn't really do much harm. People who are attacked by a knife whilst playing chess tend to forget the game and defend themselves, quite possibly, they will attack back *shock!*. Okay. Guess I'd better explain. (I learned my lesson earlier.) The chess game is, obviously, the debate, with moves and countermoves being arguments. The knife is a verbal (written) assault using name-calling or demeaning (putting-down) implications, although, thankfully, with much less damage done to the players, but, unfortunately, with much the same result to the said chess game. Drawing one's finger across one's throat before (hopefully) crushing your opponent could be gloating, mild versions of name-calling in a humor, etc. Some might consider it in bad taste, depending on the circumstances and statements used. Okay. Everyone understand my analogy? Got any of your own? (Don't forget to take mine into your thought whilst giving them.) Oh, good. whatsisname gets it:
Oh, bollocks. This isn't a debate. A debate implies some sort of issue of truth or uncertainty to be debated. this is, or should be, teaching. Because time and time again it's so bloody obvious - you don't understand evolution! I'm sorry, but it's true; you can see it above this very paragraph. I'm afraid that's only your opinion, and in my opinion, you're wrong. :lol: Whatever. It seems like, 'You don't understand evolution because you don't agree with it." Because we believe we're not an accident, means that we don't understand the theorizing of people who do. [joke]Of course we understand! They need psycological help - oh, you mean their species, not their birth? Oh, I see. Ok, never mind.[/joke]
And your point was? You'd get no further with a flat-earther if you treated hime this way. Although the attitude on that particular post seemed friendly enough. BTW,
That rationality trumps making **** up any day of the week. Explain. I don't understand you. [sermon]This is what we do when we don't understand something; we ask for clarification. We don't take the closest assumption that makes the other person seem absurd and run with it.[/sermon]
NB: hhug does mean both sphere and circle, however a quick analysis of multiple bits of Genesis makes it pretty evidence the reference was to circle or more specifically 'cylinder', which matches with the predominant Egyptian and Hebrew creation myths of the time (namely, 'earth' as a circular landmass, surrounded by water).
for example, passages about the earth being set apart from the water, and the earth (same earth) being fixed on foundations and immobile, etc. It's pretty evident of the mythological origins, and if you search about, you'll find we've had this little debate (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,35524.msg738306.html#msg738306) before. I'll look into that.
-
You see? I simply mistook the author of that argument and forgot to quote it (which would have solved the author problem anyways). I thought that the flat-earth thing yours, not aldo's. The thing is, people often ridicule others who literally believe the Bible as 'flat-earthers', thinking that way back in the day, people believed the earth was flat because the Bible said so, until science disproved the idea. Nope. the Bible, in Isaiah, states that the Earth is round, thousands of years before they were supposed to have come up with the idea. Actually, the fact is, people back then weren't as dumb as you'd think. And the Bible is accurate on this score. Got any more false notions for me to disprove? (aldo or ngtm1r )
Already answered, multiple times.
and, er, the Indians (Vedic scrolls) came up with the idea thousands of years before the bible anyways.
Plus, if it's all so explicit in the bible, why would the likes of Saint John Chrysostom find it (round / spherical) contrary to scripture?
except the Jews and later Christians who actually believed their Bibles, you mean.
See...wait, I've done this.
God made the world complex because he wanted to? Yeesh. You'd think that to be God, you have to conform to aldo's notion of him. Or was that the whole point?
you missed the point, natch. God doesn't explain anything, especially in an imperfect universe. Creation ignores the imperfection of universe, the complexity, it just assumes it's meant to be 'like this' and ignores the issue.
If you believe the current theory, Evolution had to deal with what the Big Bang and physics handed it, didn't it? Or did it get a free pass?
Evolution is the mutation and development of complexity from single celled basic life. The origin of that life is not actually part of the scope of evolution (only the composition of it); so if you're going on about creation, etc, then that's abiogenesis and physics, not evolution.
I did say you didn;t understand the scope. This is what I mean.
God always was. You were actually expecting Him to be formed somehow? According to the Bible, he spoke and it "was so". The problem with the universe always existing is that it would have to create itself from nothing. Let sort of rephrase this: What created the Universe? 'the universe always existed' OK, so now that we've established that this period of creation/big bang/evolution/whatever requires faith no matter which side you're on. You actually think it requires more faith to think that God created the universe than to think that the universe created the universe? Ok, fine by me. This is where the evolutionary 'morals' refered to come in: If there's no point, no purpose, we might as well have the best smashingest party while we can by any means necessary, because eventually, we're gonna croak. No need to research or develop anything. Sure, it might make you able to party a few more years, but in the big picture, what's it really matter after you've ceased existing? Who the heck would care? Life is puposeless, enjoy it? Whereas if you believe that there are rules you need to follow in life, and that you will be held accountable for your actions, you tend to behave a bit better. And if you believe that you and your race really, really screwed things up on their one chance of having it easy, the way things were meant to be (hey, how hard would it be to live with only one rule: don't eat from that tree) and that they were condemned to eventually die because of that choice, made corporately as a race and individually as people, and that God still loved your race enough to sacrifice Himself in the form of His Son so that you'd have a chance to accept his free payment for your breaking of His rules, you would tend to act really, really well behaved, just because you really appreciate what He's done for you. There. I think I've summarized the morals from all three views: atheistic evolution, deistic evolution and/or creation, and Biblical Christian Creationism.
Um... the thing is, science requires evidence, logic, and the ability to analyze and reanalyze. Y'know, an open mind? Based on observable evidence? Hypotheses to be supported by evidence?
Not just making stuff up and saying 'because it is'. Looking for answers.
Moreso,you don't understand evolutionary 'morality' (which actually spun off to create religion as a form of enforcement amongst other causes....). I'd suggest reading up on sexual selection in particular as an explanation for many apparently selfless acts. The suggestion that aetheism (because evolution itself doesn't run contrary to religion anyways - just ask the Vatican) is in some way immoral is simply insulting and wrong.
And y'know what? Society creates accountability, anyways. Group dynamics.
I'd have to disprove physics? That field was around before evolution and was invented by Bible-believing scientists, I'm afraid. But are you admitting there is no rational explanation of the design in nature that excludes God? (Of course not. But it sounded like it.)
And physics has evolved (hoho!) to include theories for the creation of the universe which don't need God, or the Great Spaghetti Monster, etc.
Hell, biology was probably invented by 'bible-believing scientists'......doesn't mean it's constrained now by the vagarities of centuries old belief.
So the creation theory isn't an explaination? It's one you can't scientifically prove, being that no one was there (same goes for evolution, I'm afraid... you could be 99.999% sure, but never prove it), but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation. To prove that God's word is accurate, one might think miracles, fulfilled prophesies, and eyewitnesses willing to die for their testimony and beliefs might come in handy. >gosh!< I'll have to put a few of those out here for you later.
An explanation with no supporting evidence. I mean 99.9% evidenced versus 0%? I know what I'd go with.
Hell, I'd bet someone could put a few Nostradamus 'prophecies' up here that are 'right'.......it's all a case of interpreting. why do you think people read horoscopes? Phrase anything vaguely enough, it's a prophecy fulfilled.
the bounds of evolutionary theory, summed up in four words: God didn't do it!
no.
"The complexity of life is explained by mutation and selection over time".
The only way God is involved, is that God isn't needed in the explanation. God is not even considered, because there is no evidence nor need for a supernatural creator/designer.
Same could be said for profs whose sole job is to prove or research evolution. Also, the same could be said of other scientific advancements: 'We're being held back because instead of searching out new discoveries that were put into existense by God, we're looking for discoveries that happened by accident". It just depends on who's really right. Because, whichever side is true (I'll hold my obvious opinion out) would be the side that could logically search out advancements more easily than the other.
What a strange arguement....i mean, we are talking about something (ID lobby) that works to mischaracterise and denegrate supported, reproducible and evidence science with arguements that are themselves easy to disprove.
Research is part of discovery. Do you understand the scientific process? You take the existing evidence and theories, you make a hypothesis, you test that hypothesis. you don't just metaphorically wander around to look for something God left lying about.
Here's a clue: the formation of the first life, according to Darwin, et al. was a product of evolutionary process. Period. Look it up in one of your textbooks. Oh, and while you're at it, define life. Off-hand, I'd say that once something has the potential to reproduce itself, it definitely has life. Scientifically speaking, mind you. I'm not talking about humans, and even if I was, an animal or human that for some reasone had a wonderful mutation and couldn't reproduce is still made of billions of living cells that reproduce.
Look up abiogenesis. And, er, consider the meaning of 'Origin of Species'.
"In what manner the mental powers were first developed in the lowest organisms, is as hopeless as how life itself first originated. These are problems for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man."
Darwin; Descent of Man
""It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found."
Darwin; 1872 letter
Darwin never speculated on the origin of life as a product of evolution; just a starting point. Let's not get confused, too, with evolutionary theory as relating to the formation of complex life, versus the use of 'evolution' to describe an analogous staged process (such as protein evolution).
Challenge: come up with a theory besides "it was created" (by whatever means) or "it just happened". You can't, because there aren't any.
Oversimplification. Evolution, et al, are not 'just happened'. There are complex sets of physical laws, etc describing and evidencing them.
Plus 'it just happened' isn't any different to 'it was created' anyways. Because the former answers the latter; 'why was it created?' 'it just was'. 'By who?' 'Er, someone'. 'How did they come about?' 'Dunno, they just were there'.
In any case, the absence of another rational explanation is simply an indicator - proof, really - that the current theories are those best supported, best evidenced.
Actually, a flying machine would be a bit less complex than a self-reproducing, self-sufficient machine. But, then again, Tornadoes don't last as long.
Um, not exactly. But you shown earlier you don't particular understand the principles of evolutionary mutation and development in 'stepped' physical development, after all....
Put it this way, life didn't originate in a junkyard.
I'm afraid that's only your opinion, and in my opinion, you're wrong. Whatever. It seems like, 'You don't understand evolution because you don't agree with it." Because we believe we're not an accident, means that we don't understand the theorizing of people who do. [joke]Of course we understand! They need psycological help - oh, you mean their species, not their birth? Oh, I see. Ok, never mind.[/joke]
Um, no, every arguement you've (and other people) made 'against' has been against an incorrect version of evolutionary theory. It strikes me, that to attack something as if you have some sort of better explanation, it surely would be a good idea to properly understand what you're attacking?
Because this pisses me off. It's not just the use of incorrect characterisation, the use of scientifically flawed arguements disproven by 5mins research, it's the sense that evolution is being attacked simply because it's not creationism, and that not being creationist is the only arguement required against evolution. That evolution - because it's the best answer - is somehow the only answer not requiring God
Explain. I don't understand you. [sermon]This is what we do when we don't understand something; we ask for clarification. We don't take the closest assumption that makes the other person seem absurd and run with it.[/sermon]
Evidence based conclusions. y'know, 'look and see what's there' rather than 'decide what's there and make up what you see'.
-
Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense.
Wrong.
What you've forgotten is that there were other scientific hypotheses that also cover everything that Darwinian evolution cover. Namely Saltationism, Lamarckism and Mutationism. All three have been been completely discredited by modern science but the fact is that any evidence you might get which weakens the claims for Darwinian evolution is likely to strengthen the claims for one of the rejected hypotheses.
This topic started due to the discovery of a transitional fossil. The creationists have spent most of the topic trying to prove that there is no such thing as a transitional fossil. Lets say you won. Lets say you proved without a doubt that there was no such thing. Saltationism is now back on the cards as a viable scientific theory since it is the existance of transitional fossiles that killed Saltationism as theory.
So as you can see you can't make the if evolution is wrong creation is right argument. Whatever evidence you can find that discredits evolution could easily lead to the discovery of a newer theory or revive an old one.
Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along. Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe. So, really, creation would be the proof of Creation, if you catch my drift.
Everyone believed the world was flat in the 15th century. We now think it's round. Lets say new evidence came in saying that it was in fact cube shaped. Your argument is the same as saying that cause there is evidence the world isn't round it must be flat. Even though the evidence scienfically points at a third conclusion.
If there is proof that evolution is wrong it doesn't automatically mean that creationism is right. The evidence that proves evolution wrong might be an alien biosciences lab containing details of a practical joke they plan to play on the humanoids on the planet in some type of cosmic Candid Camera show. That would not be proof of biblical creationism yet it would prove evolution wrong.
Science only says a theory is correct if it fits the evidence AND is the only theory that does. You need to not only prove evolution wrong, you need to prove that creation is right.
-
Wait a minute jr2, why go the extra step to complicate things? You say God was always there, and he created the universe, and so-on and so-forth. They say that the simplest answer is almost always the correct one, thus what need is there for God? The Universe has always been, and life within the universe has always been. Flawless and, as with a persitantly-existing-God, no need for proof. Utterly perfect.
There. I win via your own logic. :)
...S***, I should write this down, I could win a Nobel Prize for this! Drawing conclusions without wasting my time with pointless 'proof' rocks!
-
Wait a minute jr2, why go the extra step to complicate things? You say God was always there, and he created the universe, and so-on and so-forth. They say that the simplest answer is almost always the correct one, thus what need is there for God? The Universe has always been, and life within the universe has always been. Flawless and, as with a persitantly-existing-God, no need for proof. Utterly perfect.
There. I win via your own logic. :)
...S***, I should write this down, I could win a Nobel Prize for this! Drawing conclusions without wasting my time with pointless 'proof' rocks!
Have you been reading The Blind Watchmaker? :D
-
Don't argue with jr2 on the whole "Does God exist" thing. That's what creationists like him want because it allows them to argue on matters of faith. Furthermore it alienates religious people who do understand evolution by drawing the battle lines at whether or not God exists (A philosphical point which can't be resolved) rather than at whether or not evolution is correct (A scientific point which has already been resolved).
In the same way that any argument about whether evolution is true or not should exclude abiogenesis, any argument should also exclude whether or not God exists. Because whether or not he does is completely immaterial to the science involved.
-
Don't argue with jr2 on the whole "Does God exist" thing. That's what creationists like him want because it allows them to argue on matters of faith. Furthermore it alienates religious people who do understand evolution by drawing the battle lines at whether or not God exists (A philosphical point which can't be resolved) rather than at whether or not evolution is correct (A scientific point which has already been resolved).
You've got a point, but frankly I don't care any more. He's just so convinced of his superiority that we can hardly expect to budge him on the issue. He doesn't want to try to understand the world around him and instead opt for myth and legend? It's both his descision and his loss, hence my taking the piss at the poor blighter. :p
-
I can understand the point but one of the biggest reasons why these debates tend to drag on is because they quickly get off-topic. Arguing whether or not God exists is going to be another 10 pages of discussion with no resolution at the end.
The best way to prove jr2's arguments for the hollow shell they are is to stick to scientific grounds which can't be reputed without the kind of argument which is the same as simply saying "No, the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old and you'll just have to believe me on that"
For the purposes of this discussion whether God doesn't exist or is simply a master of chaos theory is completely unimportant. We simply need to prove that God didn't need to intervene during evolution to prove that the theory has scientific validity.
-
Excuse me if I nitpick but I love doing this :D
I'd have to disprove physics? That field was around before evolution and was invented by Bible-believing scientists, I'm afraid. But are you admitting there is no rational explanation of the design in nature that excludes God? (Of course not. But it sounded like it.)
Yes, Physics was a field invented before Evolution was around, but not by bible believing scientists, that title goes to the Indians which have evidence Heliocentrism as early as 1800BC.
Do you follow my logic? If aliens created life, you've got the same problem once removed. If aliens created the aliens, it's second removed, etc, etc. There must be an ultimate cause, whether it's the Big Bang, or an eternally pre-existing (or existing outside of time, possibly even creating time) creator of some type. I never said that "Creation is the only conclusion that makes sense" - You're quoting me out of context. I said, Creation without evolution to explain the universe away is the only conclusion that makes sense.
Erm... No.
If Evolution was ever disproved, all that would be left would be an empty space. Just like we don't assume god to be part of the theory that will unite gravity and quantum mechanics, we don't assume that the absence of a theory implies that whatever's left is right. Even if we were to assume that, creation is not one "theory" (I really don't want to use this word to describe it, but...) but many. Even if we confine it to a christian perspective, the views of it are endless. So like we can't say one of those theories that try to describe a possible theory of quantum gravity are definatly or even likely to be "the one" we can't say anything about that. End of story.
God always was. You were actually expecting Him to be formed somehow? According to the Bible, he spoke and it "was so". The problem with the universe always existing is that it would have to create itself from nothing. Let sort of rephrase this: What created the Universe? 'the universe always existed' OK, so now that we've established that this period of creation/big bang/evolution/whatever requires faith no matter which side you're on. You actually think it requires more faith to think that God created the universe than to think that the universe created the universe? Ok, fine by me.
Again... no. You fail to realise what the scientific method is in spite of it being literally shouted by pretty much everyone in this thread. That which can be concluded by the aplication of science is NOT and will NEVER be belief or faith. At best it is a fact and at worst an educated guess.
Also, ever heard of Occam's Razor?
And if you believe that you and your race really, really screwed things up on their one chance of having it easy, the way things were meant to be (hey, how hard would it be to live with only one rule: don't eat from that tree) and that they were condemned to eventually die because of that choice, made corporately as a race and individually as people, and that God still loved your race enough to sacrifice Himself in the form of His Son so that you'd have a chance to accept his free payment for your breaking of His rules, you would tend to act really, really well behaved, just because you really appreciate what He's done for you. There. I think I've summarized the morals from all three views: atheistic evolution, deistic evolution and/or creation, and Biblical Christian Creationism.
I don't mean to be insulting a story from a "holy book" the same validity as say, Santa. The second you start bringing religion into scientific theories, another "Galileo" happens.
So the creation theory isn't an explaination? It's one you can't scientifically prove, being that no one was there (same goes for evolution, I'm afraid... you could be 99.999% sure, but never prove it), but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation. To prove that God's word is accurate, one might think miracles, fulfilled prophesies, and eyewitnesses willing to die for their testimony and beliefs might come in handy. >gosh!< I'll have to put a few of those out here for you later.
Well guess what, we are here now and we have existed for thousands of years! Every day that goes by evolution gets more and more evidence! And so does gravity!
To conclude, I prophesise you will answer in this thread again. The FSM has spoken.
-
You depress me, jr2. Deeply. Your reactions to my reply all fall under either the informal logical fallacies of red herring or ignoratio elenchi (missing the point). You cannot answer me; you instead seek to distract me. Your own mocking comes back to haunt you; tornado in a junkyard and run. When you see fit to respond to rational, logical argument, with rational, logical argument, then we may debate. Until such time you have forfeited.
Oh my goodness. Just when I thought it couldn't be misunderstood, I am amazed again. Some of you folks from a different planet or something? You're not following my train of thought very well, and I don't know why.
Your train of thought is, simply put, not rational.
Allow me to borrow a quote from David Kahn, (and through him A.J. Ayer, a noted philosophist of Oxford, as well) to demonstrate. Slight modification has been made to the quotation; a name change.
"For Creationists do not seek knowledge - they have the faith; they are not scholars, but advocates.
" 'A man can sustain his convictions in the face of apparently hostile evidence if he is prepared to make the necessary ad hoc assumptions. But although any particular instance in which a cherished hypothesis appears to be refuted can always be explained away, there must still remain the possiblity that the hypothesis will ultimately be abandoned. Otherwise it is not a geniune hypothesis. For a proposition whose validity we are resolved to maintain in the face of any experience is not a hypothesis at all, but a definition.'
"The Creationists so maintain their view. They insist their theory is true, but if it may be true then it may also be false, and this they will not concede. For upon what evidence would they abandon their assertions?...The Creationist cannot lose. But they cannot claim to have won, either...
"It is as pointless to try and convince the Creationists of this on rational grounds as it would be to demonstrate to an inmate of a mental hospital, with pictures of Napoleon's funeral and tomb and attested documents of Napoleon's death, that he is not Napoleon. For neither he nor the Creationists hold their views rationally. They hold them emotionally. The problem of Creationism is, at heart, not logical but pyschological. This is not to say that the Creationists are pyschotics, on the contrary, in non-Creationist spheres they function adequately, perhaps even outstandingly. But as Creationists they live in a fantasy world."
-
Again, :mad2: could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given? Come on. It's not that hard to figure out.
Sorry, that's not how it works. Even if evolution were completely falsified, there is still no empircal evidence for creationism. Creationism is not even in the running as a "back-up" to evolution because it is completely non-scientific (see the definition of a scientific theory). Biologists will have to think of new theories to account for the gaps; they won't go running to a Bible for help.
-
ok, if creation is science, or a replacement for evolution, then give me some sort of prediction that creation 'theory' night make, something I could conceavably make an experiment off of.
evolution makes predictions and we test them over and over again, and they confirm the theory. if creation is science, then it should be able to do the same.
-
I suppose I'll deign to destroy one section of your argument.
Allow me to prove Genesis: fossil record. Allow me to prove the Flood: fossil record. [Arnold]I'll be back. You've made a big mistake.[/Arnold] I'll explain that (perhaps quite a while) later (week or two?).
You will want to take that back. Very quickly. Amusingly enough, I just had this argument.
For the Flood to be correct, and for Genesis to be correct:
Two-by-two animals, so there should be no extinct species. (Unless humans killed it, and have you ever tried killing a 130-ton dinosaur with bows and arrows? Hell, you're going to have a tough time with a heavy machine gun.)
We should find no aquatic animal fossils on land, as 40 days is not long enough for the number necessary to die there, fossilize, and be preserved to the present day.
We should find fossils of all animals through all time periods.
All plants should be traceable to a small group of (or single) relatively recent ancestors and there should be a mass extinction of plantlife in relatively recent history.
There should be a single strata containing vast numbers of all animals fossilized. Succeeding strata should have no fossils for the next 100000 years minimum.
Our ability to date by radioactive decay and erosion must be perfectly correct. (The significance of this will become clear momentarily.)
Our understanding of the way water picks up and drops dirt must also be perfectly correct. (Hard to imagine it isn't...again, significance will become clear shortly.)
Now, the problems:
The first six patently false. The last two are...well, you'll see.
The argument generally offered is that geologic strata are not the result of time but of layering from the Flood; this is, however, impossible given the Biblical description of the Flood. The Flood is described as having taken several days (possibly weeks, my collection of books is elsewhere and I cannot check). It was an insidious, gradual thing. It came silently in the night. But wait, you argue, that means others could have survived, only Noah did that! Well, yes. But he was not the only survivor via his forewarning; this is not explictly stated but is obvious with a little thought. He was the only survivor via having the biggest boat around, and hence able to stand up to the ensuing stormy period immediately after the intial "phase" of the Flood ending, when everyone's much smaller boats would have foundered or capsized.
Having just spent a semester on physical geography, I know a good deal about how water moves dirt around and drops it. A single strata as described above is possible but would not be attributeably to the Flood, because that would require the Flood to be poof-here-comes-the-tidal-wave; it would merely be the strata that was being laid down at the time. The existance of multiple layers attributeable to the Flood would require multiple poof-here-comes-the-tidal-wave Floods, and that is about as far from the Biblical description as one can get and still vaguely resemble it. Furthermore, all the execution would have been wrought by the first of these multiple not-Biblically-correct Floods; there should be no fossils in layers afterwards, everything that needed air was already dead, and the fish think it's just awesome they've got all this extra space now.
Because of this, for the Flood and Genesis to be correct, our ability to date by radioactive decay and by erosion must be perfectly correct; otherwise the Biblical description of the Flood must be false. Yet the only argument that you can offer requires these ablities to be in error. Paradox. The same applies to our understanding of how water picks up dirt and moves it around; this is furthermore testable and intimately familar to modern science, primarily because of its agricultural value. Yet the only way your argument can work for the Flood to be correct requires that this knowledge be false, which it is, quite demonstrably, not.
-
Allow me to prove Genesis: fossil record. Allow me to prove the Flood: fossil record. [Arnold]I'll be back. You've made a big mistake.[/Arnold] I'll explain that (perhaps quite a while) later (week or two?).
I am rubber you are glue....
Seriously though your argument amount to parroting back what was said to you with no science involved which is little better than the way 5 years olds argue. If you think that the fossil record supports creationism you'd better post some evidence as to why cause ngtm1r (and Aldo earlier) have pointed out a ton of flaws in that logic and you've not posted anything beyond sticking your tongue out and saying that "You're wrong"
-
We've done genesis (and why it's wrong) earlier in this thread anyways; http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.100.html
EDIT; damn. I forgot how funny the whole flood myth is, when you consider that the Egyptians were around at that time :D
"Ah, Ramanhemotep, it's a bit wet out there!"
"Really?"
"Yes, the entire world is underwater"
"But not us?"
"Um..... nope"
"Should we write it up?"
"Nah, let's go eat crocodiles and have beer"
-
Oh my goodness. Just when I thought it couldn't be misunderstood, I am amazed again. Some of you folks from a different planet or something? You're not following my train of thought very well, and I don't know why.
Speaking of confused, I wish some of you guys would use the quote button. Writing this post is going to be annoying...
Yes, that would be their main problem. They are supposed to consider everything in an unbiased, unemotionally affected way. But they don't. Your argument about aliens creating life is moot. 'There was once a speaker who gave a lecture in which he stated that the Terra was suspended in space with nothing supporting it. Afterwards a lady came up to him and said, "You know, you're very wrong about that." "Okay, lady," says the speaker, "Tell me what the Earth is supported on, then!" "On the back of a turtle." she replied. "Umm, I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question in mind." the speaker said. "You see, the turtle would have to be suspended on nothing then." "Oh, you may think you're clever, young man." the lady replied, "But it's turtles all the way down!"'
Btw, the earth is not "suspended on nothing". I know thats what the Bible says, along with God fixing it immovable on its foundations, but the earth is actually constantly falling around the sun.
Do you follow my logic? If aliens created life, you've got the same problem once removed. If aliens created the aliens, it's second removed, etc, etc.
Correct. Aliens seeding the planet is just moving abiogenesis off world.
There must be an ultimate cause, whether it's the Big Bang, or an eternally pre-existing (or existing outside of time, possibly even creating time) creator of some type.
No, thats a philisophical assumption with no scientific basis. Its also bad philosophy.
You guys are really, really good at finding small ommisions or errors in someone's statement, but absolutely no good at correctly supposing and suggesting what the person really meant to say or possibly meant to say, or so it seems at least.[/color]
Im not going to defend others but at least three times now you claimed I misread you about the Tornado in the Junkyard thing, but you still dont understand why its wrong.
You folks don't seem to get the logic behind If it didn't just happen, someone put it there.[/i] That is why no argument is needed to 'prove' creation; It is self-evident, unless one can logically explain how it came to be without someone to put it there.[/color]
No, I dont see the logic in calling it "creation", because you just presupposed it was "created" for no more reason other than your own faith and incredulity.
Come again? That sounds a whole lot like an argument that is quite undefensible. It exists because the Universe is sentient, and doesn't like unstable environments. So >poof!< we have something from nothing, which then became compressed (somehow) into a dot smaller than a period, smaller than an atom, perhaps even nothing at all (I do believe I actually heard that once) and then exploded. Okay, whatever. ::)
If you dont understand the Big Bang dont mock it, you only end up mocking yourself. Actually the phrase "the Big
Bang" is really more of a nickname than the name of the scientific theory, it was coined by Sir Fred Hoyle who opposed it till his death. There was no "explosion" with the Big Bang, space "expanded".
Nope. the Bible, in Isaiah, states that the Earth is round, thousands of years before they were supposed to have come up with the idea.
It also talks about the immovable "circle" (a round flat disk) of the earth, pillars holding it up with a firmament in the sky with windows which holds the water back from space. The Hebrews grew out of the ancient Sumarians, so most likely got their flat earth cosmology from them.
Everyone used to believe the world was flat until people like Plato, Aristotle, etc demonstrated it wasn't (actually, that's a slight lie; the Vedic scrolls from India described a spherical earth orbiting the sun thousands of years before that) except the Jews and later Christians who actually believed their Bibles, you mean.
Then pretty much no one was a Christian then.
Moreso, evolution doesn't even touch on the areas of 'creation' because it deals with the evolution of lifes complexity, not the formation of life or the universe (abiogenesis and the big bang / physics cover this) in any case. If you believe the current theory, Evolution had to deal with what the Big Bang and physics handed it, didn't it? Or did it get a free pass?
Thats not how science works Jr. You could very well say that EVERY scientific theory has to "deal with Big Bang physics" , but that doesnt mean germ theory is wrong, that doesnt mean aerodynamics is wrong, that doesnt mean atomic theory is wrong. You are saying science needs a complete theory of everything , or they dont know anything. I know thats how fundamentalists read their scriptures, that if one part is wrong you might as well throw the rest away, but science doesnt work like that.
as pointed out, let's say evolution is disproven, even though it never has been and no-one has even come close to it (yay for rational evidence based science!). misinterpreted evidence based faith, you mean. ;)
Thats exactly what Creationism is. Faith, and faith is not based on facts or evidence. Faith is stubbornly believe in something with no or very little supporting evidence, or when their is evidence to the contrary. Thats why you cant reason with fundamentalists because they have faith and as long as they have their faith they will never change their minds. The question is, are you a fundamentalist or are you just ignorent.
God always was. You were actually expecting Him to be formed somehow?
If your God doesnt behave to our laws of physics, why do you presume to know the universe did before the Big Bang?
The problem with the universe always existing is that it would have to create itself from nothing.
Creationists using the word "from nothing" to refer to the Big Bang never makes sence to me. We really dont know what happened before the Big Bang, and our whole concept of "nothing" is pretty meaningless in THIS universe let alone what happened before it existed. You cant define nothing so no one can really say the universe was formed "from nothing".
let sort of rephrase this: What created the Universe? 'the universe always existed' OK, so now that we've established that this period of creation/big bang/evolution/whatever requires faith no matter which side you're on.
Its funny that I always have to teach those of faith what faith means. Faith would be believing the" universe always existed" and never changing your mind, regardless or any facts that come to light in the future.
You actually think it requires more faith to think that God created the universe than to think that the universe created the universe?
Yes, of course. Because "God" is just a cop out. You can answer any question with "god did it", but thats not an answer it means you dont know, so you're putting God there. You dont know, but you pretend and think you know. Another symptom of stubborn faith. You can do it with anything. If you hear something running around in your attic do you say its a goblin? Is that a real answer? No, and neither is God.
Ok, fine by me. This is where the evolutionary 'morals' refered to come in: If there's no point, no purpose, we might as well have the best smashingest party while we can by any means necessary, because eventually, we're gonna croak. No need to research or develop anything. Sure, it might make you able to party a few more years, but in the big picture, what's it really matter after you've ceased existing? Who the heck would care? Life is purposeless, enjoy it?
First of all you dont hear of many atheists that go killing raping and pillaging. I dont know why fundamentalists seem to be so oblivious to that fact when they sit down and type such nonsence. Interestingly, Confucious the Chinese atheist talked about loving your neighbour and treating others as you would like to be treated centuries before Jesus. Buddism is probably they only religion I know of that doesnt have blood on its hands.
Second, animals still manage to live with each other including insects like bees and ants where thousands of them spend their entire lives in service of one or two queens that will eventually mate. No there are no absolute morals. What we have is inbuilt desire to get along with our fellow human. If humans didnt get along we would have probably died out long ago because we couldnt get along.
Thirdly, I do love it when literalist Bible Believing Christians being this up. You guys try and lecture to us about morality when you believe in some of the most bloody and disgusting books ever written. Thats right Im talking about the Old Testament here. I know Christians get around having to perform the ridiculous laws of Leviticus, but these were still supposedly laws given by your God. And how many times did God have people killed? How many times did God order his chosen people to whipe out entire civilisations "without mercy", to pillage destroy and kill every living thing including animals. Sometimes the Bible God says its because they were wicked wicked people, another times he says its his chosen peoples "inheritance". The actions of his "chosen people" and their God, can only be accurately be described as a murdering horde of barbarians.
The New Testament is admittedly much better, but still has some pretty stupid morals in places. This God has to kill his own son, but Christians tell us it was just him in in human form, for our sins. And why does he have to do that? Well Paul tells us, because without bloodshed there can be no forgiveness! The only reason I can see for this surpreme God killing himself is to make a point and then make us feel guilty for making him do it! What Creationists believe is worse still, that it was becuase of Adam and Eve that Jesus killed himself. That means we didnt have anything to do with this mess anyway. God as we can see from the OT in several place, passes down the punishment for generations. I could go on and on about this, but I see theres more to cover.
And if you believe that you and your race really, really screwed things up on their one chance of having it easy, the way things were meant to be (hey, how hard would it be to live with only one rule: don't eat from that tree)
Yes because apparently God feels its moral to punish something for what their ancesters did thousands of years ago. Are young germans guilty of the the WW2 crimes some of their grandfathers were guilty of? Of course not. Apparently we are more moral than God.
, and that God still loved your race enough to sacrifice Himself in the form of His Son
Creationists and some hard nosed Christains seem to have a VERY bizzare and scary idea of what "love" is.
Again, you've forgotton what evolution is; technically you need to disprove abiogenesis and physics. And even then, it's ludicrous that this would 'prove' creation; did the absence of an explanation for gravity for all those years, mean it was Intelligent Falling? I'd have to disprove physics? That field was around before evolution and was invented by Bible-believing scientists, I'm afraid.
And Darwin was still a Christian when he wrote Origins, and years before Darwin Creationist geologists disproved a global flood, because the evidence just wasnt there. And again before Darwin, Carolus Linnaeus a Creationist way ahead of his time and father of Taxonomy once pleaded to his colleagues for "a generic characteristic" by which to tell the difference between apes and humans, he said he "assuredly knew of none". But due to the rather exclusive nature of science back then being Creationist they placed humans in a seperate catagory to other apes for no scientific reason. But unlike todays Creationists back then they still managed to do real science and have some scientific integrity.
All you'd have is the absence of an explanation; the thing that led to the invention of creation myths, and the thing which science has tackled. So the creation theory isn't an explaination?
No of course it isnt. Its an argument from incredulity and faith. And which Creation story are you talking about? Sure, I know you mean the Bible one, but there are literally thosuands of Creation stories and they all are "explanations" in the same way yours is - in other words, they arent explanations at all.
It's one you can't scientifically prove, being that no one was there (same goes for evolution, I'm afraid... you could be 99.999% sure, but never prove it), but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation.
You cant "scientifically" prove any theory. Creationism isnt a scientific theory because it isnt science.
To prove that God's word is accurate, one might think miracles, fulfilled prophesies, and eyewitnesses willing to die for their testimony and beliefs might come in handy. >gosh!< I'll have to put a few of those out here for you later.[/color]
Pretty much all religions claim miracles, and "fulfilled prophesies". And as for these "eyewitnesses willing to die", i dont know how anyone today can use that as evidence their religion is correct. Just switch on the news and it wont take too long to hear about terrorists blowing themselves up and flying passenger airliners into buildings. Does that mean Islam is true? If it doesnt convince you then why would you think it would convince me? Lots of people died for their faith throughout history, it means exactly nothing.
. the bounds of evolutionary theory, summed up in four words: God didn't do it! EDIT: Summed up in four words plus a contraction. Sorry.
Just because Evolution doesnt say anything about a God doesnt mean its saying theres no such thing as God. Atomic theory doesnt mention Gods either, neither did the Newtons law of Gravity or Pastuers germ theory but that doesnt mean atomic theory and germ theory can be summerised as "god didnt do it". Thats because God if he exists at all cannot be scientifically tested in any way. They are faith positions not scientific ones.
In fact, every ID/creationist arguement I've seen in this thread so far has been characterised by a lack of understanding and hence mischaracterisation of how evolutionary theory works. We know how it supposedly works. And because we have a problem with that, we don't understand it? "
No Jr, you dont know what Evolution is or how its supposed to work. Remember what you said about the 747 analogy? Case in point. You dont get it, but thats not surprising to me, Ive never met a Creationist that wasnt either ignorent of Evolution or dishonest in that they knew they were wrong but spread misinformation anyway.
You can't understand it unless you believe it" sort of thing?
Dont be ridiculous, all you have to do is realise that everything creationist organisations ever told you about evolution is very likely a caricature or misrepresentation of it. Once you do that you can finially learning what Evolution actually is, then after you do that you can go back to your Creationist sources and you'll see for yourself how much they lie.
(ach! abiogenesis, abiogenesis, abiogenesis.....) Here's a clue: the formation of the first life, according to Darwin, et al. was a product of evolutionary process. Period. Look it up in one of your textbooks.
Support this please, with Darwins own words.
While Im certian you are totally wrong about that it wouldnt matter anyway Darwin being right 100% doesnt mean anything, once again, I know you guys believe that science has to be 100% correct or its 100% wrong but thats not how science does things. Darwin couldnt have talked about abiogenesis anyway, as that theory was formed around the middle of the 20th century. Evolution is the change in allele frequences over time, so without alleles theres no evolution. Abiogenesis is the theory of the chemistry of how those simple life forms first developed.
That you can't think of one besides evolution demonstrates rather well how it is by far the best evidenced and logical - rational - theory. Challenge: come up with a theory besides "it was created" (by whatever means) or "it just happened". You can't, because there aren't any.
No one says "it just happened", thats your caricature of all the scientific theories to do with our origins.
Except that's still wrong, because it characterises evolution as a single, random chance event. And evolution is a multi-staged event with a random differentiation action and deterministic natural selection events. This fellow needs a little help. He thinks tornadoes are single staged and happen instantaniously. jk, I know what you mean, but you know what I mean by that statement previous too.
It also assumes that a flying machine is the only output that 'works', which is again wrong. Actually, a flying machine would be a bit less complex than a self-reproducing, self-sufficient machine. But, then again, Tornadoes don't last as long.
Jeez, come on! Just give it up, the Tornado in a Junkyard analogy is simply NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS. Youve been told many times now, and each time you reply you show yet another example of how you dont understand the topic. It doesnt matter if its a "flying contraption" or a 747, yet somehow you think thats so different. This is NOTHING like evolution. Maybe this is some kind of bizzare reference to abiogenesis in which case, its still horrendously wrong.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif)
-
Just wanted to clear something up...
Yes, that would be their main problem. They are supposed to consider everything in an unbiased, unemotionally affected way. But they don't. Your argument about aliens creating life is moot. 'There was once a speaker who gave a lecture in which he stated that the Terra was suspended in space with nothing supporting it. Afterwards a lady came up to him and said, "You know, you're very wrong about that." "Okay, lady," says the speaker, "Tell me what the Earth is supported on, then!" "On the back of a turtle." she replied. "Umm, I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question in mind." the speaker said. "You see, the turtle would have to be suspended on nothing then." "Oh, you may think you're clever, young man." the lady replied, "But it's turtles all the way down!" Do you follow my logic? If aliens created life, you've got the same problem once removed. If aliens created the aliens, it's second removed, etc, etc. There must be an ultimate cause, whether it's the Big Bang, or an eternally pre-existing (or existing outside of time, possibly even creating time) creator of some type.
You'll notice I said transdimensional aliens. In their universe, evolution works just fine and thus gave rise to their life, after which they travelled into our universe - in which [according to your hypothesis] evolution cannot exist - where they terraformed Earth and deposited life here. There, i've got a considerable more plausable theory than "God did it", and - while I have no evidence - having no evidence is technically more than being incapable of having evidence [as you and others have outlined that there is and cannot be evidence for creation or the existance of a designer], and thus i've got the more credible theory. Prove me wrong, and if not, then bow down to our new Lords; the Transdimensional species of Og, lest they smite you with their transdimensional smiting apparatus.
-
Wouldn't god though technically be a transdimensional alien? An angsty transdimensional alien who has sex with women too...
Hell, Scientology all of the sudden starts to sound good. Hail Xenu!
-
Ok you guys are horribly horribly aweful. The size of these dam replys are friggin rediculous! **** takes up half a friggin page. Seriously? You expect us all to read that?
-
We all read, understood, and replied to all of the things that you've posted. (Including the things that have been discredited multiple times).
Is it really too much to ask for you to do the same?
-
if it's too hard to keep up with... fine, just, let me make it simple for you, I put up a calenge a few posts back, I want a prediction that creationism, being proported as a better explaination than evolution, makes, something that we don't know already and can make an experiment off of, that'll settle it once and for all.
-
Ok you guys are horribly horribly aweful. The size of these dam replys are friggin rediculous! **** takes up half a friggin page. Seriously? You expect us all to read that?
That attitude pretty much characterizes most, if not all, people like you. You have this preconceived notion that evolution somehow seeks to disprove God, and thus instantly disagree with it, taking no time to even bother trying to understand the theory or what it is actually saying. Because of this fundamental misunderstanding of the entire theory that it is somehow an attack on your faith, [which it most certainly is not], you couldn't care less about how it works, because you don't agree with it, and thus you maintain your initial misunderstandings in spite of being told time and time again how utterly wrong they are. This cycle leads to further misunderstanding when we try to debate the issue, ending with people like you lashing out not because you disagree with the theory, but because of your ignorace towards it leading you to think you must defend your faith, rather than expand your mind.
Honestly, we read all the s*** you post, at least have the goddamn courtesy to reciprocate.
-
God can see you whenever you reciprocate, you filthy creep. Reciprocation is unclean and a sin.
-
Ok you guys are horribly horribly aweful. The size of these dam replys are friggin rediculous! **** takes up half a friggin page. Seriously? You expect us all to read that?
Personally, since my post was very very long, I wouldnt expect someone to reply to each point but I would expect them to have actually read it and when they reply show they understand it. I dont want to be telling you something over and over because you didnt read it the first time.
-
Ok you guys are horribly horribly aweful. The size of these dam replys are friggin rediculous! **** takes up half a friggin page. Seriously? You expect us all to read that?
Well, that depends whether (generic) you want to actually learn or understands things, or if you accept the simplest answer regardless of factual merit.
I mean, it's not particularly much to read anyways. Do people not read novels any more or something?
-
[quote[
"We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down." [1]
Steve Jones
Scientist, Evolutionist
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm (http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm)
[/quote]
I just really love that quote...
-
"We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down." [1]
Steve Jones
Scientist, Evolutionist
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm (http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm)
I just really love that quote...
It's a shame that website source is utter ****e; it repeats the '2nd law' fallacy in another article, amongst other mistakes.
You can also tell the bias from the 'selected quotes' bit; note how all are a) doubtful of human evolution and b) at least 24 years old.
-
I dont know all of those quotes, but I see there are well known dishonestly quotemined Darwin ones so I suspect all the others are of the same trustworthyness.
-
"We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down." [1]
Steve Jones
Scientist, Evolutionist
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm (http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/monkeybusiness.htm)
I just really love that quote...
It's a shame that website source is utter ****e; it repeats the '2nd law' fallacy in another article, amongst other mistakes.
You can also tell the bias from the 'selected quotes' bit; note how all are a) doubtful of human evolution and b) at least 24 years old.
So what all i said was i love the quote, i didnt say it was true :p
-
Sheesh. You guys take up half a !!@#!! page with posts that consist of "You're wrong! We have proved it!" and false assumptions. ("The dating machine says that this artifact is 100,000 years old, so it must be! That proves that creationists are wrong; therefore when they say our dating methods are inaccurate, they're wrong!") :wtf:
BTW if it takes so long to make a fossil, then HOW do you get things like fossilized miners' hats, teddy bears, etc?
pssst... it doesn't take a long time to make a fossil!!!
Anyway, no one answered my skunk question...
Also, why do animals all have their eyes on their heads? Would it be impossible to evolve them ANYwhere else?
And about the lungs evolving from the stomach...
1) The stomach does not have the oxygen-absorbing power that the lungs do.
2) The stomach and lungs have separate passageways.
3) The evolved lung would be only ONE lung, not two.
4) The fish swallowing air would have increased buoyancy and would be unable to dive as well, resulting in easier capture.
5) The fish that used the "air-swallowing" technique would find it hard to get about on land, because in case you didn't know, objects weigh LESS in the water than on land...
BTW... gotta go(public library again), but the military did bench tests using the ark's proportions... called it the most stable design around. :p
later...
m
-
The fossilised hat is petrified, it calcinated by being submerged in water, a quick process, but it's not a fossil of the same type as those that leave their impressions in layers of rock over millions of years. Wood and cloth can petrify very quickly. This is common knowledge, I believe the correct term is concretion. I hate it when people bring this up because it's been dis-proved so many times and because finding a petrified felt hat is NOT the same as finding something wedged between thousands of tonnes of rock.
All animals have eyes pretty close to the brain, it's handy to have them there, because it reduces the time for the information to reach the brain and therefore speeds up reaction to possible threats or food. However, some creatures, such as Octopii have multiple 'Brains', and excellent eyesight, and they don't really have a head.
I don't have the info on stomachs, but for a land-crawling fish, the benefit of being able to lay eggs somewhere which is much less likely to be attacked is probably worth the risk.
-
Also, why do animals all have their eyes on their heads? Would it be impossible to evolve them ANYwhere else?
Its called convergent evolution, but eyes come in all shapes and sizes. Insects probably have the widest and strangest range of body forms. Simple eyes probably first evolved near to the brain (which we can see in simple life today) for practical reasons and so the trend continued
4) The fish swallowing air would have increased buoyancy and would be unable to dive as well, resulting in easier capture.
Too bad we got lungfish, and they manage to survive just fine.
5) The fish that used the "air-swallowing" technique would find it hard to get about on land, because in case you didn't know, objects weigh LESS in the water thatn on land...
You keep implying Mudskippers dont exist and cant exist, jeez, Ive think Ive told you this 3 times now.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?svnum=10&hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=mudskipper&spell=1
You keep moaning people dont answer your questions so perhaps you need to pay more attention. :rolleyes:
-
Anyway, no one answered my skunk question...
Also, why do animals all have their eyes on their heads? Would it be impossible to evolve them ANYwhere else?
So what you're saying is that God is a hack? Eyes are only on the head because God lacked the originality to put them elsewhere. :p
-
Firstly, you don't get fossilized miners hats (FYI; a fossil is the replacement of bones with mineralization; I think we discussed this earlier in the thread, including dates)
Secondly (out of order), we also addressed the issues of carbon dating/skew, etc, and how items can be reliably dated.
Now;
what skunk question?
Also, eyes exist on the head due to evolutionary advantage; it's an efficient design, it allows movement of vision and close proximity to the brain itself (reducing nerve transmission time). Also, bear in mind common ancestry.
As for lungs;
(I'm still trying to find where the stomach-as-lung bit comes from, actually, which is why I don't have specifics upon it)
1) The modern stomach does not. But the modern stomach is a specialised digestive organ anyways. I have to admit this is more BWs area (i.e. wait for his reply for something definitive; this is stab in the dark logic), but my immediate intuition would be that the evolutionary process (mutation; selected) would start allowing oxygen use and retention in the stomach. Eventually mutations would cause (selected) divergence of the two.
2) Well, of course? That would be a product of evolutionary divergence.
3) uh-huh. and then split into two?
4) bouyancy is an advantage for swimming; specifically, controlled bouyancy. I bring your attention to the humble swim bladder. Also, a lung is a great advantage in the event of, say, drought; where the oxygen content of shallows would decrease due to heat, and favour fish able to store oxygen. Also remember that an air sac needs an 'in' method (i.e. providing regulation).
5) It would be able to breathe on land. And in shallows. Ergo, it would have access to a new environment where it could be free from predation (until predators evolved the capacity to hunt there, of course). At the very least it would have a retreat point once it was finished feeding - even better for it if it could eat and reproduce there, of course.
Also, it's pretty much proven why the ark is impossible (Again see earlier in this thread); aside from the requirement of metal reinforcements for a ship that size (beyond the technology levels of the time), there are massive sanitation, distribution, etc issues which cannot be solved. It's worth noting that the design quality is rather irrelevant - or do you think there weren't ships around in pre-biblical times?(!)
(NB: I'll admit I ran out of steam typing here, sort of busy elsewhere. 1-5 is pretty gash, I realise)
-
Oh hell. You people. You're my crack, and my kryptonite. So damned frustrating yet so... damned... fun.
Alright. Let's go.
Sheesh. You guys take up half a !!@#!! page with posts that consist of "You're wrong! We have proved it!" and false assumptions. ("The dating machine says that this artifact is 100,000 years old, so it must be! That proves that creationists are wrong; therefore when they say our dating methods are inaccurate, they're wrong!") :wtf:
That's because you are wrong. What the hell is so complex about Potassium Argon, or Uranium Lead dating? Give me one reason why these common geological dating methods are inaccurate beyond the inaccuracies accounted for by the model (i.e. all dates are given with a margin of error, and they're not meant to be applied to things younger than several million years) and I'll throw all radiometric geological dating out the window. Of course, you'll still have to deal with isochron dating, optically stimulated luminescence, thermoluminescence etc. etc.
BTW if it takes so long to make a fossil, then HOW do you get things like fossilized miners' hats, teddy bears, etc?
pssst... it doesn't take a long time to make a fossil!!!
Never heard of them. Provide a link and I'll look into them. Until then, and there's an overwhelming likelyhood that even after then, given the standard quality of creationist arguments, I'm going to continue assume that it does take a long time to make a fossil because that's what all the evidence says. Moreover, this one's been dealt with by others pretty neatly I'd say.
Anyway, no one answered my skunk question...
That's because it's a stupid question which nobody thought even you could be serious about something that stupid. But, because It'll shut you up: Evolution doesn't produce instantly smelling skunks - it's a gradual process that their mates would have had time to adapt to, and the survival benefit would have outweighed any possible negative connotations Besides, as I understand it, skunks barely smell at all, naturally (though not being North American I'd be willing to retract that if given evidence to the contrary). It's their spray which stinks. Now, come up with something that isn't utterly ridiculous next time... hang on, wait...creationist.... right, sorry, I'm expecting too much.
Also, why do animals all have their eyes on their heads? Would it be impossible to evolve them ANYwhere else?
You do realize that this is evidence for evolution don't you? Common ancestry? Think, then post.
And about the lungs evolving from the stomach...
1) The stomach does not have the oxygen-absorbing power that the lungs do.
Of course it doesn't. The stomach is a digestive organ with a thick wall, not particularly dense in blood vessels and covered in mucos, and one which nobody has ever proposed as the evolution. Lungs came out of the upper intestines, gradually and developing slowly into the specialized organs we know today.
2) The stomach and lungs have separate passageways.
Well spotted there genius. You think it's impossible to split off the single tube into two if it's going to provide immense evolutionary advantage? Moreover, go dissect a simple teleost and you'll see there's a connection between the digestive system and the swim bladder.
3) The evolved lung would be only ONE lung, not two.
Splitting off into two gives increased SA for gas diffussion and follows bilateral symmetry better, and it's not a very difficult transition to make.
4) The fish swallowing air would have increased buoyancy and would be unable to dive as well, resulting in easier capture.
If it did it constantly without the neccesary anatomical adaptions to deal with it, yeah, it would. But the earliest proto-lunged fish would have done it only occasionally for just this reason. Ultimately though, they develop strategys to deal with buoyancy.
5) The fish that used the "air-swallowing" technique would find it hard to get about on land, because in case you didn't know, objects weigh LESS in the water thatn on land...
This has nothing to do with lungs and you know it. Early tetrapods already had fully developed lungs and spent so little time on land while they were developing the existing limbs into something more capable of supporting their weight, gradually spending more and more time on land. Tell me what this has to do with lungs?
BTW... gotta go(public library again), but the military did bench tests using the ark's proportions... called it the most stable design around.
Meaning... what exactly? First off, prove it with a link. Secondly so far as I know all the bible gives about the ark is dimensions - hard to use them to get all the details of a design and declare it "the most stable around". And finally, even if the ark was the best design around... so what? It's existence is still unsupported by practically every known relevant scienctific or historical discipline.
(I'm still trying to find where the stomach-as-lung bit comes from, actually, which is why I don't have specifics upon it)
Several ways - the best evidence we have is embryological - the lungs split off from the digestive tract very early in embryological development, but htere are other ways as well, such as the afore mentioned connection in some fish between the swim bladder and the digestive system and simple logic - the digestive system is much older than lungs (since gills are a simpler solution for marine oxygen extraction, but there's no other way to get nutrients out of food), and it's the only system which we can put the lungs off, since it's the only non diffusionary way of getting air into the body.
Anyway, I intend to go the chunk of this thread and take down any creationist bull**** which hasn't already had the treratment by the other intelligent people in this thread, but I have to go get ready for work. Before I go though, I am going to take one particular statement which has benn bothering me...
In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting.
This is simply and completely not true. A paraconformity is an unconformity where the strata are parallel on a small scale with limited erosional evidence. It has nothing to do with fossil systems "out of order". Thus, this man is either lying or mistaken and, based on the rest of his interview, he's probably lying (i.e. being told not to memorize the dates because they're too uncertain, or that a fundamentalist could wreak havc with information about radiometric dating, both of which are not true and would not have been told to him by any ligitimate geology professor).
-
Something random occurs to me; if a fish floats close to the top due to bouyancy, and predators lack bouyancy, doesn't that constitute an advantage to the fish anyways, as it's now able to live outside the predators optimum hunting range? Diving is only an effective defense strategy if you're diving away, after all, and if there's nothing flying above the ocean to predate.....well, you do the math.
-
Celebrate, everyone; this thread is now on the top 10 list for posts on all of HLP. Now, let's see if we can beat "Hottest woman on the planet!!!". :p
-
Ok you guys are horribly horribly aweful. The size of these dam replys are friggin rediculous! **** takes up half a friggin page. Seriously? You expect us all to read that?
Oh, really? (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg798898.html#msg798898)
This would actually be a decent debate if the creationists would stop behaving like 14 year-olds and did their research on the subject as well as how to form a scientific debate without "God said so, and if you don't believe it you're going to burn in Hell."
Char's actually probably done the best out of all of those arguing for creationism. Still, this really is 28 pages of the same old, same old.
-
As for the hat and teddy bear, anyone who ever plastered a wall using a metal grid, or used hessian as a 'gripping layer' for clay will understand how the hat was formed. That's not a fossil, it's a cast. There's a world of difference, I can make a cast in 15 minutes, let along 50 years, it's nothing to do with geology, it's more an interesting craft item than a geological one.
Edit : It's like saying clay bowls must be fossils because they are hard.
-
Ok you guys are horribly horribly aweful. The size of these dam replys are friggin rediculous! **** takes up half a friggin page. Seriously? You expect us all to read that?
Oh, really? (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg798898.html#msg798898)
This would actually be a decent debate if the creationists would stop behaving like 14 year-olds and did their research on the subject as well as how to form a scientific debate without "God said so, and if you don't believe it you're going to burn in Hell."
Char's actually probably done the best out of all of those arguing for creationism. Still, this really is 28 pages of the same old, same old.
Well, Char was the one person willing to listen and ask questions rather than just dodging from dodgy assertion to dodgy assertion, which is something worthy of praise when you consider the fundamental problem with creationists / ID proponents is that they won't listen to anything contradicting them, regardless of its proven validity.
-
There's hope for him yet......
-
As for the hat and teddy bear, anyone who ever plastered a wall using a metal grid, or used hessian as a 'gripping layer' for clay will understand how the hat was formed. That's not a fossil, it's a cast. There's a world of difference, I can make a cast in 15 minutes, let along 50 years, it's nothing to do with geology, it's more an interesting craft item than a geological one.
Edit : It's like saying clay bowls must be fossils because they are hard.
Page 15/16-and-a-bit-onwards also discussed this, too. I know it's a long thread, but I'd think both myself and others would rather not end up having to quote themselves from 10 pages back:D
-
LOL Yup, I'm certainly not going back 18 pages to check ;)
I just mentioned it because 'm' was talking about the 'fossilized' hat that was found in an Australian mine, and I've seen that rolled out so many times it drives me nuts. I could get one of my T-shirts, soak it in Plaster of Paris for a couple of hours and get precisely the same effect, I hate it when people don't actually seem to know what fossils are and then try to disprove them....
-
Evolution doesn't produce instantly smelling skunks - it's a gradual process that their mates would have had time to adapt to, and the survival benefit would have outweighed any possible negative connotations Besides, as I understand it, skunks barely smell at all, naturally (though not being North American I'd be willing to retract that if given evidence to the contrary).
Sorry, but you are going to have to retract that that last bit (skunks barely smell at all). I have smelled them many times and they REEK even when they haven't sprayed. :ick:
Anyway, the "gradual process" would go like this (at least in my opinion):
Skunk stinks only a little bit:
-Mates prefer ones that don't smell at all
-Predators don't really care and eat it anyway; END OF LINE.
Skunk stinks more than a little bit:
-Mates REALLY prefer ones that smell less or better yet, not at all.
-Predators have "adapted" (using your own argument) and don't care.
Skunks stink a lot:
-Their relatives leave them alone; END OF LINE.
-The predators eat their mates instead END OF LINE. :lol:
1) The stomach does not have the oxygen-absorbing power that the lungs do.
Of course it doesn't. The stomach is a digestive organ with a thick wall, not particularly dense in blood vessels and covered in mucos, and one which nobody has ever proposed as the evolution. Lungs came out of the upper intestines, gradually and developing slowly into the specialized organs we know today.
The intestines don't have alveoli either.
2) The stomach and lungs have separate passageways.
Well spotted there genius. You think it's impossible to split off the single tube into two if it's going to provide immense evolutionary advantage? Moreover, go dissect a simple teleost and you'll see there's a connection between the digestive system and the swim bladder.
It would have to evolve the epiglottis at the same time.
Swim bladder is NOT the same thing as a lung. :mad2:
3) The evolved lung would be only ONE lung, not two.
Splitting off into two gives increased SA for gas diffussion and follows bilateral symmetry better, and it's not a very difficult transition to make.
Why not just have one lung evenly distributed over both sides?
4) The fish swallowing air would have increased buoyancy and would be unable to dive as well, resulting in easier capture.
If it did it constantly without the neccesary anatomical adaptions to deal with it, yeah, it would. But the earliest proto-lunged fish would have done it only occasionally for just this reason. Ultimately though, they develop strategys to deal with buoyancy.
Not quite sure what you're saying, but if I understand right:
The rare occasion that it did this would result in increased buoyancy and get it eaten before it developed strategies.
BTW:
Something random occurs to me; if a fish floats close to the top due to bouyancy, and predators lack bouyancy, doesn't that constitute an advantage to the fish anyways, as it's now able to live outside the predators optimum hunting range? Diving is only an effective defense strategy if you're diving away, after all, and if there's nothing flying above the ocean to predate.....well, you do the math.
We're talking about them BOTH being on the surface of the water; smaller fish gulps air to increase its oxygen, but suddenly can't dive away from the predator like it normally could. Fish gets eaten. (But that's really just going to get into a tangent on fish's evasive manuvers, so let's not go there. :D ) (You probably think that's the most intelligent thing I've said so far.)
5) The fish that used the "air-swallowing" technique would find it hard to get about on land, because in case you didn't know, objects weigh LESS in the water thatn on land...
This has nothing to do with lungs and you know it. Early tetrapods already had fully developed lungs and spent so little time on land while they were developing the existing limbs into something more capable of supporting their weight, gradually spending more and more time on land. Tell me what this has to do with lungs?
True; nothing directly related to lungs. However, what I'm trying to say is that if the fish evolved "swim lungs" then they would not do it much good on land.
BTW ENOUGH WITH THE MUDSKIPPERS!!! They don't have lungs!!! They use their skin to breathe about as much as they use their gills!!! And when submerged, they die!
For more on this as well as on the fossil that started this thread, see http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=50
About the lungfish, see http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1153
And NOW, for the article that will most likely cause the most FLAMING, the most :mad: , :hopping: , and :snipe: , not to mention :headz: :
Evolution and Me
G E O R G E G I L D E R
Mr. Gilder is editor-in-chief of Gilder Technology Report and
co-founder of the Discovery Institute. His most recent book,
The Silicon Eye, was a finalist for the Royal Society’s Aventis
Prize for science.
I first became conscious that something was awry in Darwinian science some 40 years ago as I was writing my early critique of sexual liberation, Sexual Suicide (revised and republished as Men and Marriage). At the time, the publishing world was awash with such titles as Desmond Morris’s The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo and Robert Ardrey’s African Genesis, which touted or pruriently probed the animality of human beings. Particularly impressive to me was The Imperial Animal, a Darwinian scholarly work by two anthropologists aptly named Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox that gave my theory of sex roles a panoply of primatological support, largely based on the behavior of patriarchal hamadryas baboons.
Darwinism seemed to offer me and its other male devotees a long-sought tool—resembling the x-ray glasses lamentably found elsewhere only in cartoons—for stripping away the distracting décor of clothing and the political underwear of ideology worn by feminists and other young women of the day. Using this swashbuckling scheme of fitness and survival, nature “red in tooth and claw,” we could reveal our ideological nemeses as naked mammals on the savannah to be ruled and protected by hunting parties of macho males, rather like us.
In actually writing and researching Sexual Suicide, however, I was alarmed to discover that both sides could play the game of telling just-so stories. In The Descent of Woman, Elaine Morgan showed humans undulating from the tides as amphibious apes mostly led by females. Jane Goodall croodled about the friendliness of “our closest relatives,” the chimpanzees, and movement feminists flogged research citing the bonobo and other apes as chiefly matriarchal and frequently homosexual.
These evolutionary sex wars were mostly unresolvable because, at its root, Darwinian theory is tautological. What survives is fit; what is fit survives. While such tautologies ensure the consistency of any arguments based on them, they could contribute little to an analysis of what patterns of behavior and what ideals and aspirations were conducive to a good and productive society. Almost by definition, Darwinism is a materialist theory that banishes aspirations and ideals from the picture. As an allpurpose tool of reductionism that said that whatever survives is, in some way, normative, Darwinism could inspire almost any modern movement, from the eugenic furies of Nazism to the feminist crusades of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.
So in the end, for better or for worse, my book dealt chiefly with sociological and anthropological arguments and left out Darwin.
Turning to economics in researching my 1981 book Wealth & Poverty, I incurred new disappointments in Darwin and materialism. Forget God—economic science largely denies intelligent design or creation even by human beings. Depicting the entrepreneur as a mere opportunity scout, arbitrageur, or assembler of available chemical elements, economic theory left no room for the invention of radically new goods and services, and little room for economic expansion except by material “capital accumulation” or population growth. Accepted widely were Darwinian visions of capitalism as a dog-eat-dog zero-sum struggle impelled by greed, where the winners consume the losers and the best that can be expected for the poor is some trickle down of crumbs from the jaws (or tax tables) of the rich.
In my view, the zero-sum caricature applied much more accurately to socialism, which stifles the creation of new wealth and thus fosters a dog-eat-dog struggle over existing material resources. (For examples, look anywhere in the socialist Third World.) I preferred Michael Novak’s vision of capitalism as the “mind-centered system,” with the word itself derived from the Latin caput, meaning head. Expressing the infinite realm of ideas and information, it is a domain of abundance rather than of scarcity. Flouting zero-sum ideas, supply-side economics sprang from this insight. By tapping the abundance of human creativity, lower tax rates can yield more revenues than higher rates do and low-tax countries can raise their government spending faster than the high-tax countries do.
Thus free nations can afford to win wars without first seizing resources from others. Ultimately capitalism can transcend war by creating rather than capturing wealth—a concept entirely alien to the Darwinian model.
After Wealth & Poverty, my work focused on the subject of human creativity as epitomized by science and technology and embodied in computers and communications. At the forefront of this field is a discipline called information theory. Largely invented in 1948 by Claude Shannon of MIT, it rigorously explained digital computation and transmission by zero-one, or off-on, codes called “bits.” Shannon defined information as unexpected bits, or “news,” and calculated its passage over a “channel” by elaborate logarithmic rules. That channel could be a wire or another other path across a distance of space, or it could be a transfer of information across a span of time, as in evolution.
Crucial in information theory was the separation of content from conduit—information from the vehicle that transports it. It takes a low-entropy (predictable) carrier to bear high-entropy (unpredictable) messages. Ablank sheet of paper is a better vessel for a new message than one already covered with writing. In my book Telecosm (2000), I showed that the most predictable available information carriers were the regular waves of the electromagnetic spectrum and prophesied that all digital information would ultimately flow over it in some way. Whether across time (evolution) or across space (communication), information could not be borne by chemical processes alone, because these processes merged or blended the medium and the message, leaving the data illegible at the other end.
While studying computer science, I learned of the concept of a universal computing machine, an idealized computer envisioned by the tormented genius Alan Turing. (After contributing significantly to the Enigma project for decrypting German communications during World War II, Turing committed suicide following shock therapy—“treatment” for his homosexuality.) A so-called “Turing machine” is an idealized computer that can be created using any available material, from beach sand to Buckyballs, from microchips to matchsticks. Turing made clear that the essence of a computer is not its material substance but its architecture of ideas.
IDEAS SUPREME
Based as it is on ideas, a computer is intrinsically an object of intelligent design. Every silicon chip holds as many as 700 layers of implanted chemicals in patterns defined with nanometer precision and then is integrated with scores of other chips by an elaborately patterned architecture of wires and switches all governed by layers of software programming written by human beings. Equally planned and programmed are all the computers running the models of evolution and “artificial life” that are central to neo-Darwinian research. Everywhere on the apparatus and in the “genetic algorithms” appear the scientist’s fingerprints: the “fitness functions” and “target sequences.” These algorithms prove what they aim to refute: the need for intelligence and teleology (targets) in any creative process.
I came to see that the computer offers an insuperable obstacle to Darwinian materialism. In a computer, as information theory shows, the content is manifestly independent of its material substrate. No possible knowledge of the computer’s materials can yield any information whatsoever about the actual content of its computations. In the usual hierarchy of causation, they reflect the software or “source code” used to program the device; and, like the design of the computer itself, the software is contrived by human intelligence.
The failure of purely physical theories to describe or explain information reflects Shannon’s concept of entropy and his measure of “news.” Information is defined by its independence from physical determination: If it is determined, it is predictable and thus by definition not information. Yet Darwinian science seemed to be reducing all nature to material causes.
As I pondered this materialist superstition, it became increasingly clear to me that in all the sciences I studied, information comes first, and regulates the flesh and the world, not the other way around. The pattern seemed to echo some familiar wisdom. Could it be, I asked myself one day in astonishment, that the opening of St. John’s Gospel, In the beginning was the Word, is a central dogma of modern science?
In raising this question I was not affirming a religious stance. At the time it first occurred to me, I was still a mostly secular intellectual. But after some 35 years of writing and study in science and technology, I can now affirm the principle empirically. Salient in virtually every technical field—from quantum theory and molecular biology to computer science and economics—is an increasing concern with the word. It passes by many names: logos, logic, bits, bytes, mathematics, software, knowledge, syntax, semantics, code, plan, program, design, algorithm, as well as the ubiquitous “information.” In every case, the information is independent of its physical embodiment or carrier.
Biologists commonly blur the information into the slippery synecdoche of DNA, a material molecule, and imply that life is biochemistry rather than information processing. But even here, the deoxyribonucleic acid that bears the word is not itself the word. Like a sheet of paper or a computer memory chip, DNA bears messages but its chemistry is irrelevant to its content. The alphabet’s nucleotide “bases” form “words” without help from their bonds with the helical sugar-phosphate backbone that frames them. The genetic words are no more dictated by the chemistry of their frame than the words in Scrabble are determined by the chemistry of their wooden racks or by the force of gravity that holds them.
This reality expresses a key insight of Francis Crick, the Nobel laureate co-author of the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA. Crick expounded and enshrined what he called the “Central Dogma” of molecular biology. The Central Dogma shows that influence can flow from the arrangement of the nucleotides on the DNA molecule to the arrangement of amino acids in proteins, but not from proteins to DNA. Like a sheet of paper or a series of magnetic points on a computer’s hard disk or the electrical domains in a random-access memory—or indeed all the undulations of the electromagnetic spectrum that bear information
through air or wires in telecommunications—DNA is a neutral carrier of information, independent of its chemistry and physics. By asserting that the DNA message precedes and regulates the form of the proteins, and that proteins cannot specify a DNA program, Crick’s Central Dogma unintentionally recapitulates St. John’s assertion of the primacy of the word over the flesh.
By assuming that inheritance is a chemical process, Darwin ran afoul of the Central Dogma. He believed that the process of inheritance “blended” together the chemical inputs of the parents. Seven years after Darwin published The Origin of Species, though, Gregor Mendel showed that genes do not blend together like chemicals mixing. As the Central Dogma ordains and information theory dictates, the DNA program is discrete and digital, and its information is transferred through chemical carriers—but it is not specified by chemical forces. Each unit of biological information is passed on according to a digital program—a biological code—that is transcribed and translated into amino acids.
THE MEDIUM NOT THE MESSAGE
Throughout the 20th century and on into the 21st, many scientists and politicians have followed Darwin in missing the significance of the “Central Dogma.” They have assumed that life is dominated by local chemistry rather than by abstract informative codes. Upholding the inheritability of acquired characteristics, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Trofim Lysenko, Aleksandr Oparin, Friedrich Engels, and Josef Stalin all espoused the primacy of proteins and thus of the environment over the genetic endowment. By controlling the existing material of human beings through their environment, the Lamarckians believed that Communism could blend and breed a new Soviet man through chemistry. Dissenters were murdered or exiled. (The grim story is vividly told in Hubert Yockey’s definitive 2005 book, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life.)
For some 45 years, Barry Commoner, the American Marxist biologist, refused to relinquish the Soviet mistake. He repeated it in an article in Harper’s in 2002, declaring that proteins must have come first because DNA cannot be created without proteinbased enzymes. In fact, protein-based enzymes cannot be created without a DNA (or RNA) program; proteins have no structure without the information that defines them. As Yockey explains, “It is mathematically impossible, not just unlikely, for information to be transferred from the protein alphabet to the [DNA] alphabet. That is because no codes exist to transfer information from the 20-letter protein alphabet to the 64-letter [codon] alphabet of [DNA].” Twenty letters simply cannot directly specify the content of patterns of 64 codons.
But the beat goes on. By defrocking Lawrence Summers for implying the possible primacy of the genetic word over environmental conditions in the emergence of scientific aptitudes, the esteemed professoriat at Harvard expressed its continued faith in Lamarckian and Marxian biology.
Over at NASA, U.S. government scientists make an analogous mistake in constantly searching for traces of protein as evidence of life on distant planets. Without a hierarchy of informative programming, proteins are mere matter, impotent to produce life. The Central Dogma dooms the NASA pursuit of proteins on the planets to be what we might call a “wild goo chase.” As St. John implies, life is defined by the presence and precedence of the word: informative codes.
I began my 1989 book on microchips, Microcosm: The Quantum Era in Economics and Technology, by quoting physicist Max Planck, the discoverer of the quantum, on the resistance to his theory among the scientific establishment—the public scientists of any period whom I have dubbed the Panel of Peers. By any name they define the “consensus” of respectable science. At the beginning of the 20th century, said Planck, they balked at taking the “enormous step from the visible and directly controllable to the invisible sphere, from the macrocosm to the microcosm.”
But by entrance into the “microcosm” of the once-invisible world of atoms, all physical science was transformed. When it turned out early in the 20th century that the atom was not a “massy unbreakable particle,” as Isaac Newton had imagined, but a complex arena of quantum information, the classical physics of Newton began inexorably to break down. We are now at a similar point in the history of the sciences of life. The counterpoint to the atom in physics is the cell in biology. At the beginning of the 21st century it turns out that the biological cell is not a “simple lump of protoplasm” as long believed but a microcosmic processor of information and synthesizer of proteins at supercomputer speeds. As a result, breaking down as well is the established biology of Darwinian materialism.
No evolutionary theory can succeed without confronting the cell and the word. In each of the some 300 trillion cells in every human body, the words of life churn almost flawlessly through our flesh and nervous system at a speed that utterly dwarfs the data rates of all the world’s supercomputers. For example, just to assemble some 500 amino-acid units into each of the trillions of complex hemoglobin molecules that transfer oxygen from the lungs to bodily tissues takes a total of some 250 peta operations per second. (The word “peta” refers to the number ten to the 15th power—so this tiny process requires 250x1015 operations.)
Interpreting a DNA program and translating it through a code into a physical molecule, the cells collectively function at almost a thousand times the processing speed of IBM’s new Blue Gene/L state-of-the-art supercomputer. This information processing in one human body for just one function exceeds by some 25 percent the total computing power of all the world’s 200 million personal computers produced every year.
Yet, confined as they are to informational functions, computer models stop after performing the initial steps of decoding the DNA and doing a digital-to-analog conversion of the information. The models do not begin to accomplish the other feats of the cell, beginning with the synthesis of protein molecules from a code, and then the exquisitely accurate folding of the proteins into the precise shape needed to fit them together in functional systems. This process of protein synthesis and “plectics” cannot even in principle be modeled on a computer. Yet it is essential to the translation of information into life.
WORRYING THE WORD
Within the Panel of Peers, the emergence of the cell as supercomputer precipitated a mostly unreported wave of consternation. Crick himself ultimately arrived at the theory of “panspermia”—
in which he speculated that life was delivered to the earth from other galaxies, thus relegating the roblems of creation to a realm beyond our reach. Sensing a crisis in his then exclusively materialist philosophy, neo-Darwinian Richard Dawkins of Oxford coined the word “meme” to incorporate formation in biology, describing ideas as undergoing a Darwinian process of survival of the fittest. But in the end Dawkins’s memes are mere froth on the surface of a purely chemical tempest, fictive eflections of material reality rather than a governing level of information. The tongue still wags the mind.
These stratagems can be summed up as an effort to subdue the word by shrinking it into a physical function, whimsically reducing it to a contortion of the pharynx reflecting a firing of synapses
following a mimetic emanation of matter from a random flux of quanta shaking physical atoms. Like the whirling tigers of the children’s fable, the recursive loops of names for the word chase their tails around the tree of life, until there is left at the bottom only a muddled pool of what C. S. Lewis called “nothing buttery.”
“Nothing buttery” was Lewis’s way of summing up the stance of public scientists who declared that “life” or the brain or the universe is “nothing but” matter in motion. As MIT’s Marvin Minsky famously asserted, “The brain is nothing but a ‘meat machine.’” In DNA (2003), Crick’s collaborator James Watson doggedly insisted that the discovery of DNA “proved” that life is nothing but or “merely chemistry and physics.” It is a flat-universe epistemology, restricted to what technologists call the “physical layer,” which is the lowest of seven layers of abstraction in information technology between silicon chips and silica fiber on the bottom and the programs and content at the top.
After 100 years or so of attempted philosophical leveling, however, it turns out that the universe is stubbornly hierarchical. It is a top-down “nested hierarchy,” in which the higher levels command more degrees of freedom than the levels below them, which they use and constrain. Thus, the higher levels an neither eclipse the lower levels nor be reduced to them. Resisted at every step across the range of reductive sciences, this realization is now inexorable. We know now that no accumulation of knowledge about chemistry and physics will yield the slightest insight into the origins of life or the rocesses of computation or the sources of consciousness or the nature of intelligence or the causes of conomic growth. As the famed chemist Michael Polanyi pointed out in 1961, all these fields depend on chemical and physical processes, but are not defined by them. Operating farther up the hierarchy, iological macrosystems such as brains, minds, human beings, businesses, societies, and economies onsist of intelligent agents that harness chemical and physical laws to higher purposes but are not reducible to lower entities or explicable by them.
Materialism generally and Darwinian reductionism, pecifically, comprise thoughts that deny thought, and contradict themselves. As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” Nobel-laureate biologist Max Delbrück (who was trained as a physicist) described the contradiction in an amusing epigram when he said that the neuroscientist’s effort to explain the brain as mere meat or matter “reminds me of nothing so much as Baron Munchausen’s attempt to extract himself from a swamp by pulling on his own hair.”
Analogous to such canonical self-denying sayings as The Cretan says all Cretans are liars, the paradox of the self-denying mind tends to stultify every field of knowledge and art that it touches and threatens to diminish this golden age of technology into a dark age of scientistic reductionism and, following in its trail, artistic and philosophical nihilism.
All right, have a tantrum. Hurl the magazine aside. Say that I am some insidious charlatan of “creation-lite,” or, God forfend, “intelligent design.” “In the beginning was the Word” is from a mystical passage in a verboten book, the Bible, which is not a scientific text. On your side in rebuffing such arguments is John E. Jones III of central Pennsylvania, the gullible federal judge who earlier this year made an obsequious play to the Panel of Peers with an attempted refutation of what has been termed “intelligent design.”
But intelligent design is merely a way of asserting a hierarchical cosmos. The writings of the leading exponents of the concept, such as the formidably learned Stephen Meyer and William Dembski (both of the Discovery Institute), steer clear of any assumption that the intelligence manifestly present in the universe is necessarily supernatural. The intelligence of human beings offers an “existence proof” of the possibility of intelligence and creativity fully within nature. The idea that there is no other intelligence in the universe in any other form is certainly less plausible than the idea that intelligence is part of the natural world and arises in many different ways. MIT physicist and quantum-computing pioneer Seth Lloyd has just published a scintillating book called Programming the Universe that sees intelligence everywhere emerging from quantum processes themselves—the universe as a quantum computer. Lloyd would vehemently shun any notion of intelligent design, but he posits the universe as pullulating with computed functions. It is not unfair to describe this ubiquitous intelligence as something of a Godlike force pervading the cosmos. God becomes psi, the “quantum wave function” of the universe.
All explorers on the frontiers of nature ultimately must confront the futility of banishing faith from science. From physics and neural science to psychology and sociology, from mathematics to economics, every scientific belief combines faith and facts in an inextricable weave. Climbing the epistemic hierarchy, all pursuers of truth necessarily reach a point where they cannot prove their most crucial assumptions.
IRREDUCIBLE
The hierarchical hypothesis itself, however, can be proven. Kurt Gödel, perhaps the preeminent mathematician of the 20th century and Einstein’s close colleague, accomplished the proof in 1931. He demonstrated in essence that every logical system, including mathematics, is dependent on premises that it cannot prove and that cannot be demonstrated within the system itself, or be reduced to it. Refuting the confident claims of Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, and David Hilbert that it would be possible to subdue all mathematics to a mechanical unfolding of the rules of symbolic logic, Gödel’s proof was a climactic moment in modern thought.
This saga of mathematical discovery has been beautifully expounded in a series of magisterial books and articles by David Berlinski, notably his intellectual autobiography Black Mischief (1986), The Advent of the Algorithm (2000), and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005). After contemplating the aporias of number theory in Black Mischief, he concluded, “It is the noble assumption of our own scientific culture that sooner or later everything might be explained: AIDS and the problems of astrophysics, the life cycle of the snail and the origins of the universe, the coming to be and the passing away. . . . Yet it is possible, too, that vast sections of our experience might be so very rich in information that they stay forever outside the scope of theory and remain simply what they are: unique, ineffable, insubsumable, irreducible.” And the irreducibility of mathematical axioms translates directly into a similar irreducibility of physics. As Caltech physicist and engineer Carver Mead, a guiding force in three generations of Silicon Valley technology, put it: “The simplest model of the galaxy is the galaxy.”
The irreducibility takes many forms and generates much confusion. Michael Behe, author of the classic Darwin’s Black Box (1996), shows that myriad phenomena in biology, such as the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting cascade, are “irreducibly complex” in the sense that they do not function unless all their components are present. It’s an all-or-nothing system incompatible with an evolutionary theory of slow, step-by-step incremental change. Behe’s claim of “irreducible complexity” is manifestly true, but it thrusts the debate into a morass of empirical biology, searching for transitional forms in the same way that paleontologists search for transitional fossils. Nothing definitive is found, but there are always enough molecules of smoke, or intriguing lumps of petrified stool or suggestive shards of bones or capsules of interesting gas, to persuade the gullible judge or professor that somewhere there was a flock of flying dragons or a whirling cellular rotaxane that fit the bill.
Mathematician Gregory Chaitin, however, has shown that biology is irreducibly complex in a more fundamental way: Physical and chemical laws contain hugely less information than biological phenomena. Chaitin’s algorithmic information theory demonstrates not that particular biological devices are irreducibly complex but that all biology as a field is irreducibly complex. It is above physics and chemistry on the epistemological ladder and cannot be subsumed under chemical and physical rules. It harnesses chemistry and physics to its own purposes. As chemist Arthur Robinson, for 15 years a Linus Pauling collaborator, puts it: “Using physics and chemistry to model biology is like using lego blocks to model the World Trade Center.” The instrument is simply too crude.
Science gained its authority from the successes of technology. When Daniel Dennett of Tufts wants to offer unanswerable proof of the supremacy of science, he writes, “I have yet to meet a postmodern science critic who is afraid to fly in an airplane because he doesn’t trust the calculations of the thousands of aeronautical engineers and physicists that have demonstrated and exploited the principles of flight.” Dennett is right: Real science is practical and demonstrable, following the inspiration of Michael Faraday, Heinrich Hertz, Thomas Edison, William Shockley, Robert Noyce, Charles Townes, and Charles Kao—the people who built the machines of the modern age. If you can build something, you can understand it.
The Panel of Peers, however, is drifting away from these technological foundations, where you have to demonstrate what you invent—and now seeks to usurp the role of philosophers and theologians. When Oxford physicist David Deutsch, or Scientific American in a cover story, asserts the reality of infinite multiple parallel universes, it is a trespass far beyond the bounds of science into the realm of wildly speculative philosophy. The effort to explain the miracles of our incumbent universe by postulating an infinite array of other universes is perhaps the silliest stratagem in the history of science.
Darwin’s critics are sometimes accused of confusing methodological materialism with philosophical materialism, but this is in fact a characteristic error of Darwin’s advocates. Multiverse theory itself is based on a methodological device invented by Richard Feynman, one that “reifies” math and sees it as a physical reality. (It’s an instance of what Whitehead called “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.”) Feynman proposed the mapping of electron paths by assuming the electron took all possible routes, and then calculating the interference patterns that result among their wave functions. This method was a great success. But despite some dabbling as a youth in many-worlds theory, Feynman in his prime was too shrewd to suggest that the electron actually took all the possible paths, let alone to accept the theory that these paths compounded into entire separate universes.
Under the pressure of nothing buttery, though, scientists attempt to explain the exquisite hierarchies of life and knowledge through the flat workings of physics and chemistry alone. Information theory says this isn’t possible if there’s just one universe, and an earth that existed for only 400 million years before the emergence of cells. But if there are infinite numbers of universes all randomly tossing the dice, absolutely anything is possible. The Peers perform a prestidigitory shuffle of the cosmoses and place themselves, by the “anthropic principle,” in a privileged universe where life prevails on Darwinian terms. The Peers save the random mutations of nothing buttery by rendering all science arbitrary and stochastic.
Science still falls far short of developing satisfactory explanations of many crucial phenomena, such as human consciousness, the Big Bang, the superluminal quantum entanglement of photons across huge distances, even the bioenergetics of the brain of a fly in eluding the swatter. The more we learn about the universe the more wide-open the horizons of mystery. The pretense that Darwinian evolution is a complete theory of life is a huge distraction from the limits and language, the rigor and grandeur, of real scientific discovery. Observes Nobel-laureate physicist Robert Laughlin of Stanford: “The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.”
In the 21st century, the word—by any name—is primary. Just as in Crick’s Central Dogma ordaining the precedence of DNA over proteins, however, the word itself is not the summit of the hierarchy. Everywhere we encounter information, it does not bubble up from a random flux or prebiotic soup. It comes from mind. Taking the hierarchy beyond the word, the central dogma of intelligent design ordains that word is subordinate to mind. Mind can generate and lend meaning to words, but words in themselves cannot generate mind or intelligence.
Retorts the molecular biologist: Surely the information in DNA generates mind all the time, when it gives the instructions to map the amino acids into the cells of the brain? Here, however, intercedes the central dogma of the theory of intelligent design, which bars all “magical” proteins that morph into data, all “uppity” atoms transfigured as bits, all “miracles” of upstream influence. DNA can inform the creation of a brain, but a brain as an aggregation of proteins cannot generate the information in DNA. Wherever there is information, there is a preceding intelligence.
At the dawn of information theory in 1948, MIT cybernetician and Shannon rival Norbert Weiner defined the new crisis of materialism: “The mechanical brain does not secrete thought ‘as the liver does bile,’ as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism that does not admit this can survive at the present day.”
This constraint on the Munchausen men of the materialist superstition is a hard truth, but it is a truth nonetheless. The hierarchies of life do not stop at the word, or at the brain. The universe of knowledge does not close down to a molecular point. It opens up infinitely in all directions. Superior even to the word are the mind and the meaning, the will and the way. Intelligent people bow their heads before this higher power, which still remains inexorably beyond the reach of science.
Throughout the history of human thought, it has been convenient and inspirational to designate the summit of the hierarchy as God. While it is not necessary for science to use this term, it is important for scientists to grasp the hierarchical reality it signifies. Transcending its materialist trap, science must look up from the ever dimmer reaches of its Darwinian pit and cast its imagination toward the word and its sources: idea and meaning, mind and mystery, the will and the way. It must eschew reductionism—except as a methodological tool—and adopt an aspirational imagination. Though this new aim may seem blinding at first, it is ultimately redemptive because it is the only way that science can ever hope to solve the grand challenge problems before it, such as gravity, entanglement, quantum computing, time, space, mass, and mind. Accepting hierarchy, the explorer embarks on an adventure that leads to an ever deeper understanding of life and consciousness, cosmos and creation.
Predicted Response:
:hopping: "He uses 'irreducible complexity! He said 'Intelligent Design!' IGNORE HIM!!!" :hopping:
I'm unfortunately going to be gone until the end of the month; can't wait to see all the:
:( :blah: :sigh: :doubt: :ick: :mad2: :mad: :hopping: :wtf: :eek: :eek2: :nervous: :shaking: :confused: :headz: :jaw: etc.
'til then,
m
-
What the...
It's a one man vanity piece, he manages to advertise just about every book he ever wrote in there and says nothing of substance whatsoever...
'. DNA can inform the creation of a brain, but a brain as an aggregation of proteins cannot generate the information in DNA. Wherever there is information, there is a preceding intelligence.'
That is, without a doubt, one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in my life. It was human brains that mapped the DNA in the first place! And brains don't create DNA, what planet is this man on? He complains that we don't know how the brain works and then proceeds to tell us what it can and cannot do?
'The Panel of Peers, however, is drifting away from these technological foundations, where you have to demonstrate what you invent—and now seeks to usurp the role of philosophers and theologians. When Oxford physicist David Deutsch, or Scientific American in a cover story, asserts the reality of infinite multiple parallel universes, it is a trespass far beyond the bounds of science into the realm of wildly speculative philosophy. The effort to explain the miracles of our incumbent universe by postulating an infinite array of other universes is perhaps the silliest stratagem in the history of science.'
In other words 'I didn't understand him.'
As far as mind is concerned, he says nothing new, Descartes thought that mind was seperate from Brain years ago, and some scientists still agree with him, but we aren't talking about a circuitboard for a PC here, we are talking about Billions of connections firing all the time, frequently without any apparent trigger, performing maintenance of things we aren't even aware of. Just because we don't fully understand how the human brain works yet is NOT evidence for God, and this guy accuses other scientists of making leaps of faith? Comparing a brain to a modern computer is one of the most inaccurate analogies I've ever heard, the Brain is nothing whatsoever like a modern PC in any way, it doesn't even process information in the same way, it doesn't even use a 2-state system for most of it's computations, a computer relies on Boolean logic, a human brain has to fight against it's earlier incarnations to get anything remotely approaching logic.
Seriously, this is the weakest argument yet.
-
Seriously, how old is m, seriously.... :rolleyes:
-
he reminds me of the people that actually believe everything they say on fox news
-
I wonder if he's aware the Nitrogen would smell if we had nasal receptors for it? Or that people who work in very smelly environments end up developing a tolerance for that smell?
It's the confusion between Creationism and Evolution that gets me. Creationist time-scales when applied to evolutionary theory simply won't work. Skunks evolved over millions of years, a distance of time impossible to imagine from the viewpoint of a species with 70ish years at best. Male and Female skunks developed together.
Predicted Response:
"He uses 'irreducible complexity! He said 'Intelligent Design!' IGNORE HIM!!!"
Frankly M, you've got things more than a little round the wrong way there, you might want to look at the reactions of IDers to evolutionary arguments before making blanket statements like that. After all, how many valid evolutionary points have been made in this thread alone that have been conveniently ignored?
-
Sheesh. I take up half a !!@#!! page with posts that consist of "You're wrong! We have proved it!" and false assumptions. :wtf:
Fixed it for you.
-
and the other half of the page filled with one quote in one post from one person, seriusly, post a friging link if it has more than five thousand words
-
By the way, I've got a question for the young-earth creationists:
Oceanographers have been looking at the sea floor around divergant zones of the Earth's crust (areas where the sea floor is literally splitting apart, and lava fills in the gap to create new land) for a long time now, and they can measure the rate at which the two plates are moving apart. We can then compare the recession velocity with the distance from the rift zone, and calculate how old that part of the sea floor is. And it turns out that some areas of sea floor are on the order of hundreds of thousands, even millions of years old.
Also, we can determine its age via magnetism: Since the Earth's magnetic field switches polarity every now and then, certain crystals in the lava become alligned North or South, and freeze that way when the lava solidifies as new sea-floor.
So my question is this: How does someone who believes in a young Earth account for this?
Oh, here's a few links about sea-floor spreading:
http://www.discoverourearth.org/student/tectonics/sea_floor_spreading_i.html (http://www.discoverourearth.org/student/tectonics/sea_floor_spreading_i.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_floor_spreading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_floor_spreading)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_boundary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_boundary)
-
(I'm just going to address direct replies to myself at this point, as I'm busy at work; however, i would not you've cited a pair of biased creationist sources - no peer review! - which we've seen to prefer dogma over science in previous examples, and that the mudskipper is a great example of the adaptive advantage and thus selection reward/pressure of developing an ability to breathe outside the water. The lungfish, of course, does have primitive lungs which are of great advantage in de-oxygenated water.)
We're talking about them BOTH being on the surface of the water; smaller fish gulps air to increase its oxygen, but suddenly can't dive away from the predator like it normally could. Fish gets eaten. (But that's really just going to get into a tangent on fish's evasive manuvers, so let's not go there. Big grin ) (You probably think that's the most intelligent thing I've said so far.)
You've completely missed the point, actually. But it's ok, because it gives me a good opportunity to explain selection in action.
Every predator-prey interaction is a risk-reward situation. Both expend energy in a chase situation; the predator expends less in these situations, because it's 'running' for its dinner, not its life (as the prey is).
Ok. So, any advantage the prey gets is manifold, because it can afford to spend more on running away (a predator has to use energy in a way allowing multiple hunts, after all). Now, let's go back to the swim bladder.
The predator is not in the surface of the water. It doesn't have the natural bouyancy because - shock - it has no swim bladder. Bear in mind we're talking about evolutionary advantage here; a predator might develop a bouyancy mutation (to simplify; not necessarily a swim bladder at this point, just an ability to regulate bouyancy) before prey, but it won't be useful enough to be selected until the prey is living on the surface, i.e. bouyant. I believe this is sometimes referred to as the 'red queen' effect, i.e. is akin an evolutionary arms race.
So, initially, this bouyancy mutation is selected for the prey, because the predator, lacking bouyancy, resides at the bottom. Remember, swimming - going - up takes more energy than going down; same as it's more useful for a bird to fly up away from a ground based predator, than for said predator to jump up in the air and the bird dive away.
Moreso, the predator will not be inclined to 'hunt up', as most fish - most prey - at this point will lack a bouyancy aid, and thus be in the lower reaches of the water; within the more optimum hunting (energy) range. However, should a predator evolve a bouyancy aid of its own, then that can be selected, because it opens up a new hunting niche for that species - it makes it energy-efficient to hunt.
Oh, what the hell; i'll do a wee bit more;
On the topic; "Did Lungfish Evolve Into Amphibians?"
Firstly, the biblical quote at the top should show you the hidden (or not) agenda here, and the inherent bias. Moreso, should the lack of any scientific reference source. It's worth also noting John Morris, Ph.D., is a geologist (which also makes me wonder - has he ever published anything? And also note that he was caught out in a hoax;http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html), not a biologist, and thus completely unqualified.
Secondly, there appears to be a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise lungfish evolution; for example, no mention that mammals are believed to have evolved from the Devonian lungfish (Osteolepiformes). He's also - deliberately, I'd wager - making the completely erroneous statement that evolution would require synchronized changes rather than sequential; presumably to create the 'false chance' type arguement we've seen to many times before.
Here's a bit more - with references - on transitional forms from fish; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html
This goes on a bit further; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html Again, it provides references.
Also, a bit on his mischaracterisation of the status of the Coalacanth; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html
and finally, to mention the Rhipidistia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhipidistia
Interesting how he tries to wrongly imply said families position in evolutionary history, somehow - shock - omitting that it's seen as a 'root' of the fish evolutionary tree and describing it more as if it were some sort of leaf branch. Look at http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/140Sarcopterygii/140.400.html and see how 'far' away the Tetrapod branch is, for example.
I hope you also note how he takes 3 very specific examples; I'd guess because those were the 3 easiest to 'disprove', even though things like, er, basic facts or any form of scientific references went missing along the line.....not to mention twisting the context of them. Tut-tut, not very scientific. Propagandistic, one might say.
-
Going to be away for about a week; gotta go to camp (I'm an adult leader) with m. Yikes!! But after that, I'll be back & he'll be going to another camp; then I'll take a look at some of these responses. I thought the article m posted (I showed the article to him; you can blame me :lol:) was actually pretty good... but anyways, I'll look here later.
In a week.
-
My biggest problem with it is that it is textbook vanity writing. Look at the context, he says something that he obviously feels passionately about, and disagrees with the scientific community with, and yet, for all his need to get his point across, still remembers to name every single one of his books. It's like subliminal marketting, pick something that is currently a hot subject, make an announcement that disagrees with one side of it and insert several references to your books in it.
Jack Thompson is a great example of using this technique, he selects parts of facts, and pieces them together to create non- facts, and still manages to add shameless self-promotion of himself and his book to every single press release he makes. He's actually extremely skilled at it.
Also, it just seems to be the same arguments in different words. Protein folding etc etc, though his references towards that and the computing power of the human brain goes straight over my head, DNA was around long before any kind of central nervous system was, DNA is a biological event, our brain doesn't intelligently design it.
The fact is, science as about 30 different possibilities as to how life could have started, from volcanic vents to more elaborate theories around Clay's abilities to form complicated microscopic structures, Carbon compounds can stick onto clay surfaces, where they act as catalysts for the formation of more complex molecules. It's sounds far fetched, but it had been raining for several million years, there may well have been a lot of clay around.
Remember, Prokaryotes are NOT cells, they are Bacteria, a far simpler form of life, Cyanobacteria, which is one of the earliest detected life-forms still exists in vast quantities in the Oceans today, without it, we'd be dead, because it contributes massively to the Oxygen cycle of the planet via Photosynthesis. Anatartic core sample have shown that the Oxygen content of the atmosphere slowly starts to rise with appearance of Cyanobacteria. It was that which starts to act as a trigger for O2 breathing creatures and more complex systems as the bacteria slowly evolve and exploit their surroundings.
-
On "the brain designing/modifying DNA" there is Niche Construction, an organism modifying its genetics through manipulation of its environment. (i.e. human gene frequencies being changed due to technologies such as glasses) Generally applies only to tool using primates or other social animals though.
-
What I'd like to know is why teeth.
Not 'where did teeth come from?', let's leave the what made what argument to one side, and look at it from a purely logical point of view. Why do we grow 2 sets of teeth?, why do they have nerves in them? Why aren't they self repairing?
If ID wants to be recognised as a science then answers to questions like these have to be provided in a testable fashion. Evolutionists have their theories, based on what they believe, so I'd be interested to hear the other side of the opinion.
Edit : Oh, and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/darwin_evolution
-
About the lungfish, see http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1153
ICR is a discredited, non-scientific group of people trying to push creationism into science using whatever double-talk and outright lies necessary.
-
This was certainly a documented case of microevolution, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research.
Sorry, but I just found this line rather amusing. ;)
-
Good god, the thread that absolutely refuses to die. Wow. This is what I get for letting my attention drift to other matters.
As much as I'd love to see this handled as a proper debate between two sides with competing claims, the truth is that I know it will never be that. What we inevitably have is the evolutionary camp presenting evidence, over, and over, and over, and whichever poster is currently 'defending' creationism/ID/whatever by essentially sticking their fingers in their ears and singing. Whether they are unable, unwilling, or simply uninterested in understanding the counterarguments is irrelivant; ultimately it's nearly impossible to convince someone who is willing to come into a public space (even in the anonimity of the internet) and try to defend creationist nonsense that they are wrong. And with that, there's one point (that was brought up before) that I'd like to comment on, since ultimately this whole thing comes down to faith. For the half-dozen or so "experts" who have lended their names to creationism, how many ordained ministers are unable to deny that evolution happens? I'll be the first to admit that I don't have numbers or even any evidence to back that up, mainly because the point is meaningless when it comes down to a scientific argument; without evidence someone's opinion doesn't mean anything.
-
Well one billion Catholics all have decided that evolution is real for if we're talking priests it's all of them. It's only the protestants (And mostly American protestants at that) who still disagree. And even there it's not all of them. You can find lots of ministers and vicars who agree that evolution is real.
Of course the YEC all think that they're heretics or something no doubt. :rolleyes:
-
About the lungfish, see http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1153
From that page.
The problem would be solved if we could find fossils of transitional forms, but alas, no "fishibian" has ever been found. Every fish, living or fossil, even those with unusual characteristics, is fully fish, and every amphibian, living or fossil, is fully amphibian.
Points to page 1 and the post that started the whole bloody topic.
The creature shares some characteristics with a fish; it has fins with webbing, and scales on its back.
But it also has many features in common with land animals. It has a flat crocodile-like head with eyes positioned on top and the beginnings of a neck - something not seen in fish.
So by Dr Josh's own words the problem is solved then? :lol:
-
Of course the YEC all think that they're heretics or something no doubt. :rolleyes:
Not necessarily. As long as they believe that God was the one that used evolution... the problem is, if you haven't noticed, the whole Christian faith has a few basic tenets: (This is an incomplete and not expanded properly list, but you'll get the gist of it.)
1. God created the Universe. Genesis 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=1&version=31&context=verse)
2. God created mankind. Genesis 1:26-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=26&end_verse=28&version=31&context=context)
3. Mankind rebelled. Genesis 2:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:15-17;&version=31;); Genesis 3:1-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:1-19;&version=31;)
4. God punished that rebellion. Genesis 3:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:16-19;&version=31;); Romans 5:12-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-14;&version=31;)
5. God decided to save mankind from his punishment by sending Jesus to die for mankind's sins, and then raising Jesus from the dead. Matthew 1:21-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:21-23;&version=31;); Romans 3:3-3:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:3-3:31;&version=31;); Romans 4:25-5:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204:25-5:9;&version=31;); Many, many others.
Evolution says that death has been here all along; it's just part of life (how's that for an oxymoron). The Bible says that death is the end of life and is a punishment for sin. You can't have both. The only way to have both would be to say that God used evolution for everything except man, or perhaps including man and then made man immortal, then punished his disobedience by returning him to his previous state??
BTW, check this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:12-23;&version=31;) out, emphasis on verse 19. That is why evangelical Christians have such a hard time with evolution: it goes against the core of their faith. Also, I didn't mention that, if evolution were true and God was not involved, and just kind of watched it happen, then he would be a liar, because the Bible states that He did indeed create everything. Now, if He's lying about creating the Earth, then why would you trust Him to save you from your sins and bring you to Heaven when you die? Why would you care about the said "sins" anyways?
Without God as the One to be responsible to because of His being your Creator, there is no 'wrong' or 'right', just whatever helps you to survive. If God had nothing to do with Creation, then I'm sorry, but He has no say in what we do. We would be the only 'gods' around, unless something else evolved on a higher level, and even then, maybe evolution would smile on us and we'd evolve faster. Without a Creator, everything is relative. Life is pointless. You fight to survive, but you'll eventually die. Your species may continue, but who cares when you're dead? And even your species will eventually die out, unless they evolve the ability to evade that nasty second law of thermodynamics.
So, either we must get rid of the Christian (and Muslim and Jewish) religions, or at least relegate them to something you believe in for no particular reason. Or, on the other hand...[/i] what if those Christians are right? You have managed to seriously T-off the God of the Universe. (Everyone has, not just you in particular.) Congratulations, you have until the end of your life to figure out how to patch things up. Don't worry, though, He did all the work for you, you just have to accept His gift. Now, on the other hand, if you don't accept... well then, it's extra crispy for all of eternity for you (or me ;) ). That's assuming the Christian religion is right. The Muslim religion I am less familiar with. The Jewish religion is the same as the Christian, except they don't believe that God sent Jesus as Savior, they think He's still coming.
But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator. (You can figure out which one's correct by studying the religions after you figure out that a Deity was involved.) So one would definitely hope that one could figure out whether or not God is Creator before one dies. Now there are plenty of scientists who would agree that some Intelligent force was involved with the creation of the world. There's the fact of our positioning in the Solar System, the rotation speed, angle and the distance from Sol to Terra, the size and type of Sol, the moon which provides tidal forces to circulate water, and many other things mentioned in greater detail here:
web page (http://www.illustramedia.com/tppinfo.htm), preview clip (http://www.illustramedia.com/tpppreview.htm), script (.pdf) (http://www.illustramedia.com/scripts/ThePrivilegedPlanet-web.pdf). Basically, the chances of getting it right are 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 . :eek2:
Also, the dreaded Intelligent Design factor:
web page (http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm), preview clip (http://www.illustramedia.com/umolpreview.htm), script (.pdf) (http://www.illustramedia.com/scripts/UnlockingtheMysteryofLifeScript.pdf). I'm not certain, but I believe the chances of that are much worse. Also this (http://www.illustramedia.com/wdtelinfo.htm) might be interesting, but you'd have to buy it. (You can't download the script or any previews; I have not looked at these yet.)
Also, here's (http://www.geocities.com/joshuap_richards/evolution_airlines.doc) an article that my pastor wrote a while back. (I'm sure it's no shocker to you guys that I go to church!!) :lol:
So, what do you think? I've got more, but I must collect my wits after my trip, and I do believe I also probably have some unanswered stuff further back in this thread. (Probably some of you guys think I didn't answer anything, but... have patience!!!
PS Much, much patience! ;)
-
Of course the YEC all think that they're heretics or something no doubt. :rolleyes:
Not necessarily. As long as they believe that God was the one that used evolution... the problem is, if you haven't noticed, the whole Christian faith has a few basic tenets: (This is an incomplete and not expanded properly list, but you'll get the gist of it.)
1. God created the Universe. Genesis 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=1&version=31&context=verse)
2. God created mankind. Genesis 1:26-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=1&verse=26&end_verse=28&version=31&context=context)
3. Mankind rebelled. Genesis 2:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:15-17;&version=31;); Genesis 3:1-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:1-19;&version=31;)
4. God punished that rebellion. Genesis 3:16-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:16-19;&version=31;); Romans 5:12-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-14;&version=31;)
5. God decided to save mankind from his punishment by sending Jesus to die for mankind's sins, and then raising Jesus from the dead. Matthew 1:21-23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%201:21-23;&version=31;); Romans 3:3-3:31 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:3-3:31;&version=31;); Romans 4:25-5:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204:25-5:9;&version=31;); Many, many others.
Evolution is compatable with every single one of those tenets. Case in point, the Catholic Church accepts evolution, and don't they follow the same Bible as the rest of you?
BTW, check this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%2015:12-23;&version=31;) out, emphasis on verse 19. That is why evangelical Christians have such a hard time with evolution: it goes against the core of their faith. Also, I didn't mention that, if evolution were true and God was not involved, and just kind of watched it happen, then he would be a liar, because the Bible states that He did indeed create everything. Now, if He's lying about creating the Earth, then why would you trust Him to save you from your sins and bring you to Heaven when you die? Why would you care about the said "sins" anyways?
Without God as the One to be responsible to because of His being your Creator, there is no 'wrong' or 'right', just whatever helps you to survive. If God had nothing to do with Creation, then I'm sorry, but He has no say in what we do. We would be the only 'gods' around, unless something else evolved on a higher level, and even then, maybe evolution would smile on us and we'd evolve faster. Without a Creator, everything is relative. Life is pointless. You fight to survive, but you'll eventually die. Your species may continue, but who cares when you're dead? And even your species will eventually die out, unless they evolve the ability to evade that nasty second law of thermodynamics.
I'm not even going to touch you reference to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as i'll let someone else more versed in rebuffing that piece of tripe rip into you for that one. Regarding the rest of your little rant there, welcome to the basics of existentialism. Forgive me if i'm wrong, but what exactly is wrong with there being no real meaning behind our existence? No real impact upon the greater universe as to how we conduct our short, boring lives? It may be hard for you to accept, or even consider, given your obviously religious mindset, but it's a very possible and very real situation that we are all in. Whether or not you accept that is in no way connected to the theory of evolution, and there is no real point even discussing the whole depressing reality of existence any further.
Moreover, if you try getting into the whole 'no such thing as morality in an atheistic society', I recall a study that showed heavily religious societies were in fact more crime-ridden, more unstable, and basically that religion was in fact more damaging to society than the lack there of. However, as this has no bearing on evolution, I won't go into it further.
But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator.
Wrong. There are plenty of religions where 'God' is not a creator.
Now there are plenty of scientists who would agree that some Intelligent force was involved with the creation of the world. There's the fact of our positioning in the Solar System, the rotation speed, angle and the distance from Sol to Terra, the size and type of Sol, the moon which provides tidal forces to circulate water, and many other things mentioned in greater detail here:
web page (http://www.illustramedia.com/tppinfo.htm), preview clip (http://www.illustramedia.com/tpppreview.htm), script (.pdf) (http://www.illustramedia.com/scripts/ThePrivilegedPlanet-web.pdf). Basically, the chances of getting it right are 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 . :eek2:
Also, the dreaded Intelligent Design factor:
web page (http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm), preview clip (http://www.illustramedia.com/umolpreview.htm), script (.pdf) (http://www.illustramedia.com/scripts/UnlockingtheMysteryofLifeScript.pdf). I'm not certain, but I believe the chances of that are much worse. Also this (http://www.illustramedia.com/wdtelinfo.htm) might be interesting, but you'd have to buy it. (You can't download the script or any previews; I have not looked at these yet.)
No, there are not 'plenty of scientists' who agree that intelligent design took place. If they do, they're not scientists or they're simply in an unrelated field and therefore cannot comment on the subject from a scientific standpoint. Scientists, or at least most of them, back up hypothesis with testable evidence. As the notion of an intelligent force does not have any evidence [and what little is lauded as evidence is complete bollocks as previously stated in this thread], no credible scientist would even consider intelligent design.
Now, regarding the whole 'chances of Earth being here, and the sun being there, yadda yadda yadda', you're making one fatal error; what we are now isn't the only way we could be. Yes, our life requires a relatively specific habitable zone regarding placement in a solar system, but that's because we evolved/developed in this particular zone. So of course, it would stand to reason that life that developed in our planetary situation would obviously find it rather difficult developing in a completely different planetary situation. If the Earth were closer to the sun, life would have developed differently. If Earth was farther from the sun and didn't have a moon, we would have developed differently. You've got to remember that life on this planet is not the only possible way life can exist. The universe didn't 'get it right', as there is nothing to 'get right' in the first place. Think of it like this, when you absent-mindedly draw on a piece of paper, just doodle when you're bored in Maths class, is that doodle right or wrong?
We corrected you when you assumed that about evolution, and it applies again here.
So, what do you think? I've got more, but I must collect my wits after my trip, and I do believe I also probably have some unanswered stuff further back in this thread. (Probably some of you guys think I didn't answer anything, but... have patience!!!
PS Much, much patience! ;)
Before making more assertions, perhaps you could go back and answer most of the questions posited to you previously in the thread. Just out of politeness. :)
-
One arguement against intelligent design.
If we had been designed by a all powerful being, wouldn't we be instilled with the knowledge of it's existance at birth?
-
BTW, check this out, emphasis on verse 19. That is why evangelical Christians have such a hard time with evolution: it goes against the core of their faith. Also, I didn't mention that, if evolution were true and God was not involved, and just kind of watched it happen, then he would be a liar, because the Bible states that He did indeed create everything. Now, if He's lying about creating the Earth, then why would you trust Him to save you from your sins and bring you to Heaven when you die? Why would you care about the said "sins" anyways?
The Vatican seems to be able to rationalise it pretty well, I note. Although, I couldn't really give a **** about the religious objections; because it's the scientific objections that apply to the scientific theory of evolution, and all those scientific objections have been thoroughly shown to be wrong.
(if people want to teach ID in science classes, then why not teach aetheism in RE and point out all the little holes in the Bible et al?)
Without God as the One to be responsible to because of His being your Creator, there is no 'wrong' or 'right', just whatever helps you to survive. If God had nothing to do with Creation, then I'm sorry, but He has no say in what we do. We would be the only 'gods' around, unless something else evolved on a higher level, and even then, maybe evolution would smile on us and we'd evolve faster. Without a Creator, everything is relative. Life is pointless. You fight to survive, but you'll eventually die. Your species may continue, but who cares when you're dead? And even your species will eventually die out, unless they evolve the ability to evade that nasty second law of thermodynamics.
Ridiculous bollocks; I really hate this - frankly vile - tactic to portray evolution as some sort of aetheistic and immoral tenet, when all it is is the science of studying the complexity of life. Should I pull out the old 'only religion makes good people do bad things' quote in response?
Firstly, we've already dealt with the 2nd law multiple times, and you're still not reading our replies obviously. Sigh.
Secondly, evolution and group dynamics evolve the concept of right and wrong; moral behaviour has a reward. Life, in fact, becomes more valuable, not less, if you view it as a singular, 'short' event of time to be used. (I kind of like the Buddhist philosophy over this; worrying about the afterlife is like being shot by an arrow and worrying about who made the arrow)
Moreso, the rules of right and wrong as defined in the various holy books reflect that; they're an attempt to codify and mass-apply social rules of good behaviour. why else have things like requiring battlements on your house, or not wearing goods of mixed cloth? So in actuality, it's a conflict between a set of moral guidelines defined by modern society and the modern world, against a set of moral guidelines defined by society about 2000 or so years ago.
So, either we must get rid of the Christian (and Muslim and Jewish) religions, or at least relegate them to something you believe in for no particular reason. Or, on the other hand...[/i] what if those Christians are right? You have managed to seriously T-off the God of the Universe. (Everyone has, not just you in particular.) Congratulations, you have until the end of your life to figure out how to patch things up. Don't worry, though, He did all the work for you, you just have to accept His gift. Now, on the other hand, if you don't accept... well then, it's extra crispy for all of eternity for you (or me ). That's assuming the Christian religion is right. The Muslim religion I am less familiar with. The Jewish religion is the same as the Christian, except they don't believe that God sent Jesus as Savior, they think He's still coming.
I've never understood this arguement that God gave us this highly intelligent rational, logical brain.... and then punishes us for using it. Apparently God is not only vengeful but irrational, egocentric and insecure. (and whatever happened to non claiming to know the mind of God?)
And not even a very good designer, too.
But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator. (You can figure out which one's correct by studying the religions after you figure out that a Deity was involved.) So one would definitely hope that one could figure out whether or not God is Creator before one dies. Now there are plenty of scientists who would agree that some Intelligent force was involved with the creation of the world. There's the fact of our positioning in the Solar System, the rotation speed, angle and the distance from Sol to Terra, the size and type of Sol, the moon which provides tidal forces to circulate water, and many other things mentioned in greater detail here:
Um... you do realise that there are billions of stars in this universe, equally billions of planets, quite possibly billions or trillions of big-crunch-bang cycles, and even perhaps parallel universes (depending on your view of how time works)? So even accepting those odds, it's not even all that unlikely. When I get home - assuming I remember - I'll quote the section of the Blind Watchmaker which deals with this exact subject. I also suspect those odds are made up using the most exaggerated values possible to enlarge them....
And, as was pointed out, those odds only apply to the form of life that developed here. Not life itself. Now, it kind of stands to reason that life developing on a planet will be life adapted for the environment, doesn't it?
(any support for 'plenty of scientists'? Or context as to what that immeasurably vauge statement 'intelligent force' comprises? Or is this one of those 'Ill try and get away with making stuff up' things we see so often from creationists?)
EDIT; wait a sec, why the **** are we even talking about this thing. The religious angle is entirely irrelevant - on the same level as ascribing gravity is against God because it's not Intelligent Falling - and the scientific 'arguement' has already been shown to be incorrect several times already. If you really want a debate, how about a) you post a single scientific criticism per-post that we will reply to and b) you answer said criticisms or at least indicate a basic reading of them?
-
Previously on Terra Firma:
1. The humans were created by god.
3. They rebelled.
4. They evolved.
5. ...and they have a plan...
jr2 has just confirmed that YECs are actually Cylons in disguise. Blow them out the airlock before it's too late!
-
Is Jr2 trying to use the Bible as "scientific proof"?
-
Is Jr2 trying to use the Bible as "scientific proof"?
I would guess that perhaps he's trying to use the ole 'evolution is aetheism' arguement; a tactic seen quite often by creationists / fundies who realise they can't portray a reasonable and irrefutable scientific arguement against evolutionary theory (etc), and thus resort to dirty tricks trying to slander scientists, etc, as being immoral, and sometimes even using the very odd tactic of moral blackmail via a God said people might not even believe in.
Certainly if the Vatican can manage to reconcile evolution with the Bible, I'm not sure how anyone could claim the bible offers any sort of unarguable contradiction (particularly as we know parts of the creation myth are, well, a myth and often inherited ala the Epic of Gilgamesh predating the Flood mythos).
-
One arguement...If we had been designed by a all powerful being, wouldn't we be instilled with the knowledge of it's existance at birth?
Heh, heh. Ecclesiastes 3:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%203:11;&version=45;)
Evolution is compatable with every single one of those tenets.
So, Evolution is compatible with death being a result of mankind's rebellion, not a vital part of the origin of species?
Forgive me if i'm wrong, but what exactly is wrong with there being no real meaning behind our existence? No real impact upon the greater universe as to how we conduct our short, boring lives? It may be hard for you to accept, or even consider, given your obviously religious mindset, but it's a very possible and very real situation that we are all in.
No impact unless proven wrong, that is. If Creation is true, then it has a rather serious impact. Of course, if it's correct, then there's really no point and why is everyone so upset about it? I'm not sure a true existentialist would even care about what anyone thinks, as it really doesn't matter what you believe anyways. The only time it matters what you believe is if there is a God involved, or if those beliefs extend to your relationship with people around you (and then only sofar as they're concerned).
Wrong. There are plenty of religions where 'God' is not a creator.
Ahh. Many religions where there is no 'higher being' involved? Many religions where we just, err, well, appeared? Okay, forgive me, I'm going to crack a joke you will probably not find funny: I can think of one such religion: Atheistic Evolutionism. :lol: - Hey, why aren't you laughing? C'mon, it's funny! :nervous: Stop looking at me like that!
No, there are not 'plenty of scientists' who agree that intelligent design took place. If they do, they're not scientists or they're simply in an unrelated field and therefore cannot comment on the subject from a scientific standpoint. Scientists, or at least most of them, back up hypothesis with testable evidence. As the notion of an intelligent force does not have any evidence [and what little is lauded as evidence is complete bollocks as previously stated in this thread], no credible scientist would even consider intelligent design.
This is the reason some Evolutionists should have their beliefs classified as a religion: they refuse to examine any alternative. You said it: no credible scientist would even consider intelligent design.
So they are not real scientists. You don't have to be an evolutionist to be credible. You just have to show your work. And I'm sure you mean evolutionary scientist, because, as has been pointed out, there are scientists who believe in ID, even YEC (although it's not such a stretch as you'd think); their field is just not in biology, which one might think was the only credible field of scientific study. All of the scientific fields are interrelated and affect the others.
You've got to remember that life on this planet is not the only possible way life can exist.
Really. That's interesting, given the total lack of evidence. "Evolution happened here, so it could happen elsewhere with different circumstances. Because Evolution can happen with different circumstances, we know it happened here because we are not the only way that life could have formed." OK. I'm trying to get the picture, but it's gone all circular on me. (If I missed the point, tell me what the point was again.)
Think of it like this, when you absent-mindedly draw on a piece of paper, just doodle when you're bored in Maths class, is that doodle right or wrong?
Hmm. Apparently you doodle in spelling class :D , but anyways...If I (sort of) intelligently doodle something, the doodle is the result of my doodling; you need to think of a better analogy, this one's not looking to good in my opinion.
So of course, it would stand to reason that life that developed in our planetary situation would obviously find it rather difficult developing in a completely different planetary situation.
Not completely different. Even slightly different.
Before making more assertions, perhaps you could go back and answer most of the questions posited to you previously in the thread. Just out of politeness.
OK, but you can't post anything 'till I come back!! jk, but seriously, I am going to try to nail some of this stuff down. It would help if I had a list... maybe I'll have to make one.
(if people want to teach ID in science classes, then why not teach aetheism in RE and point out all the little holes in the Bible et al?)
Since atheism is a religion, I would have absolutely no problem with that. ;)
(I kind of like the Buddhist philosophy over this; worrying about the afterlife is like being shot by an arrow and worrying about who made the arrow)
Here's one for you: Why don't you try and find out who made the arrow before whoever made it decides you're not listening? This Buddhist philosophy takes the afterlife as inevitable; if death is part of evolution, and evolution is how we got here, then there is no afterlife, unless it conveniently evolved at about the same time as us.
I've never understood this arguement that God gave us this highly intelligent rational, logical brain.... and then punishes us for using it. Apparently God is not only vengeful but irrational, egocentric and insecure. (and whatever happened to non claiming to know the mind of God?)
No, no, no... for not using it. :) Seriously, though, what do you mean? (How does He supposedly punish us for using our brains? :confused: )
And not even a very good designer, too.
It rather seems your brain functions are running rather smoothly, given the amount of comprehensible data you've just output. That alone is (in my opinion) an evolutionary impossiblilty.
Um... you do realise that there are billions of stars in this universe, equally billions of planets, quite possibly billions or trillions of big-crunch-bang cycles, and even perhaps parallel universes (depending on your view of how time works)? So even accepting those odds, it's not even all that unlikely.
From: Evolution Airlines (http://www.geocities.com/joshuap_richards/evolution_airlines.doc)
Let's assume that there was not just one earth positioned just the right distance from the sun, at just the right angle, spinning at just the right speed (without which, we'd either burn up, freeze, or fly off). Let's also assume that all that nasty diluting ocean water was really an ENTIRE sea of already formed amino acids. (There are 20 different kinds in life, and they must exist in the L-form for life, with rare exceptions. In the lab, they occur in D-form 50% of the time, but they can't be used for life. We'll also assume they're L!) We'll further assume that the deadly U.V. light wasn't so bad. Now, we'll really assume, and say that there were 1 MILLION earths rotating around EACH of the 10 to the 27th power stars in our universe.7 That's 1,000000000000000000000000000000000 earths. Now we will assume that 10 to the 73rd power proteins were forming and breaking apart every second for the past 10 BILLION years. The simplest, self-reproducing organism known today has around 600 specific sequenced proteins, but it is conceivable to have one with 124 proteins, each composed of 400 amino acids, of which there are 20 different types, all having to exist in the L-form. What is the probability of just ONE simple cell arising by chance, even given those fantastic conditions?
Statistical evidence shows the chance to be 1 in 10 to the 78,436th power!8 That's one chance in 100000....followed by 75 PAGES of zeroes! Which means the chances are, it did NOT happen that way. How large is that number? Well, there are only about 10 to the 80th power (80 zeroes) Atoms in the entire universe. Statisticians tell us that if an event's probability of occurring is less than 1 in 10 to the 20th power, it will NEVER happen.9 Now if you knew that the chance of you getting across the street safely, or of flying across the ocean in a jet, was only 1 in 10 to the 78,436th power, (Meaning assured death!), would you go?
The article that I linked to has footnotes with source material.
I also suspect those odds are made up using the most exaggerated values possible to enlarge them....
*looks at the free passes given to evolution in referenced article*
* ::) *
Now, it kind of stands to reason that life developing on a planet will be life adapted for the environment, doesn't it?
But the chances even given that, as you have seen, are nil. I have a new theory of evolution: President what's his name used his stolen Improbability Drive.
(any support for 'plenty of scientists'?...)
I don't have the stats for scientists, but about 90% (I think more) of the general population in the US believes God had to be involved with the process at some point. That's according to Gallup, I do believe.
(... Or context as to what that immeasurably vauge statement 'intelligent force' comprises? Or is this one of those 'Ill try and get away with making stuff up' things we see so often from creationists?)
Intelligence is a most complex practical property of mind, integrating numerous mental abilities, such as the capacities to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn.
Although many generally regard the concept of intelligence as having a much broader scope, for example in cognitive science and computer science, in some schools of psychology, the study of intelligence generally regards this trait as distinct from creativity, personality, character, or wisdom.
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
The Force is a binding, ubiquitous power that is the object of the Jedi and Sith monastic orders in the Star Wars universe.
Oops. Wrong one.
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Vulgar Latin *fortia, from Latin fortis strong
1 a (1) : strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power <the forces of nature> <the motivating force in her life>
EDIT; wait a sec, why the **** are we even talking about this thing. The religious angle is entirely irrelevant *snip*
Because, even though I don't think I even mentioned religion, you guys dragged it up, insisting that the Christian religion didn't have any problems coinciding with evolution. (I will have to chack back to when it was first dug up.) And, BTW, I do have a few responses I was going to post here, but I ran out of time, I saved them somewhere around here...I'll dig them up later, probably this weekend.
Is Jr2 trying to use the Bible as "scientific proof"?
See above.
Is Jr2 trying to use the Bible as "scientific proof"?
I would guess that perhaps he's trying to use the ole 'evolution is aetheism' arguement; a tactic seen quite often by creationists / fundies who realise they can't portray a reasonable and irrefutable scientific arguement against evolutionary theory (etc), and thus resort to dirty tricks trying to slander scientists, etc, as being immoral, and sometimes even using the very odd tactic of moral blackmail via a God said people might not even believe in.
Certainly if the Vatican can manage to reconcile evolution with the Bible, I'm not sure how anyone could claim the bible offers any sort of unarguable contradiction (particularly as we know parts of the creation myth are, well, a myth and often inherited ala the Epic of Gilgamesh predating the Flood mythos).
See above.
-
Since atheism is a religion
Since when?
-
I'm an atheist,
Dictionary.com definition =One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I suppose a belief or disbelief constitutes a religion. But this is a paradoxic situation, Which completely buggers my comprehensions of what i just said......... :confused:
-
Evolution is compatable with every single one of those tenets.
So, Evolution is compatible with death being a result of mankind's rebellion, not a vital part of the origin of species?
Can't really comment on the details, as I stopped being religious years ago. But I maintain that if the Catholic Church can accept evolution, then why can't you? I mean, it's all basically the same faith, is it not?
Wrong. There are plenty of religions where 'God' is not a creator.
Ahh. Many religions where there is no 'higher being' involved? Many religions where we just, err, well, appeared? Okay, forgive me, I'm going to crack a joke you will probably not find funny: I can think of one such religion: Atheistic Evolutionism. :lol: - Hey, why aren't you laughing? C'mon, it's funny! :nervous: Stop looking at me like that!
What are you on about? I was just calling you on a rather simplistic blanket statement. Case in point, Bhuddism has no creator gods, if I recall correctly, and it's the 4th-largest religion in the world.
Moreover, your assertion that 'atheistic evolutionism' is a religion is patently false. Primarily, 'atheist' means 'without religion', the 'absence of religion', so how can a philosophy revolving around the absence of religion be counted as religion? Furthermore, the theory of Evolution is no different than Newton's theory of Gravity, or Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Unless you're prepared to admit you're a member of multiple religions from the religion of Gravity, to the religion of Quatumn Mechanics, just stop acting like an ass in making silly, baseless assumptions that are obviously false.
One more thing, can you stop referring to the theory of Evolution as 'evolutionism' as if it is some sort of sinister, rival religion?
*Snip*
So they are not real scientists. You don't have to be an evolutionist to be credible. You just have to show your work. And I'm sure you mean evolutionary scientist, because, as has been pointed out, there are scientists who believe in ID, even YEC (although it's not such a stretch as you'd think); their field is just not in biology, which one might think was the only credible field of scientific study. All of the scientific fields are interrelated and affect the others.
Y'know, screw making a really long answer outlining what I mean. Show me a scientist that has conducted credible, peer-reviewed studies on the subject of Young-Earth Creationism. Then I will conceed that there are indeed scientists out there who not only believe YEC [who cares whether they do or not?], but can be cited as an authority on it.
You've got to remember that life on this planet is not the only possible way life can exist.
Really. That's interesting, given the total lack of evidence. "Evolution happened here, so it could happen elsewhere with different circumstances. Because Evolution can happen with different circumstances, we know it happened here because we are not the only way that life could have formed." OK. I'm trying to get the picture, but it's gone all circular on me. (If I missed the point, tell me what the point was again.)
Y'know, life on another planet is a hell of a lot more likely that what you're trying to argue. I was going to teach you all about extremophiles, strange organisms that grow around deep-sea vents in temperatures that would kill any other organism in seconds, or algal organisms that grow beneath the ice in the Antarctic to show you that organisms can grow in different environments and are thus fundamentally different, but **** it. To ****ing hell with defending Evolution. To ****ing hell with defending our position. This is just starting to piss me off.
Stop trying to find a hole in evolution and give us a reason to give Creationism or YEC a chance!
-
Since atheism is a religion, I would have absolutely no problem with that.
It's not, though.
Religion - theism - is predicated on the belief of a supernatural influence upon life, whereas aetheism does not accept that premise. Moreso, theism / religion requires a 'framework' of belief, which aetheism doesn't (it's broader than that); to coin a phrase, it's essentially a criticism of the belief that life requires the supernatural.
(in any case, it still wouldn't change the fact that creationism / ID isn't science)
Here's one for you: Why don't you try and find out who made the arrow before whoever made it decides you're not listening? This Buddhist philosophy takes the afterlife as inevitable; if death is part of evolution, and evolution is how we got here, then there is no afterlife, unless it conveniently evolved at about the same time as us.
The arrow analogy is from Buddha; specifically, that worrying about the afterlife is like worrying about the maker of the arrow rather than removing it.
No, no, no... for not using it. Seriously, though, what do you mean? (How does He supposedly punish us for using our brains? )
Well, you're the one aiming to remove the results of millenia of rational investigation in favour of a story, by (trying to) contradicting a scientific, evidenced theory by half truth (at best; for example citing the 2nd law erroneously again).
It rather seems your brain functions are running rather smoothly, given the amount of comprehensible data you've just output. That alone is (in my opinion) an evolutionary impossiblilty.
Then you don't understand evolution well enough. I'd suggest reading The Mating Mind by Geoffery Miller, which gives a very good account (and very well written) of the role of sexual selection in the brains cognitive evolution.
Plus, I'd like to know why I have a big wodge of entirely unnecessary lower intestine, which has no purpose or need except to facilitate flatulence. For example.
The article that I linked to has footnotes with source material.
AAaaaaaaaah.
And to think I linked an abiogenesis article earlier explaining how wrong these types of 'one off' chance calculations are. Ah well, last time I link this; I'll assume you missed it; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html (with sources)
(anyways, why the hell are you citing your pastor as evidence on abiogenesis theory? Is he a retired biologist or something?)
Plus, when a footnote says;
Ibid, footnote 2, p. 437, first column, 4th full paragraph. Dr. Coyne arrogantly states "Almost all scientists consider the theory of evolution to be a scientific fact." This is irrelevant, even if true. Almost all scientists once thought the tonsils were left over organs from when we were lower forms, or vestigial organs, but we now know that to be false. For information "vestigial organs" see "Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional" by CRS Press, PO Box 8263, St. Joseph, MO 64508-8263 The fact is tens of thousands of scientists absolutely reject evolution and many others would never call it a "fact". The scientific evidence just doesn't support it.
Then you know that the resulting (citing) text is pre-biased, unscientific and worthless as any sort of factual source - picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion, the antithesis of science and rationality.
(sidenotes; protein/rna/dna evolution, sequential action of abiogenesis rather than spontaneous generation)
I don't have the stats for scientists, but about 90% (I think more) of the general population in the US believes God had to be involved with the process at some point. That's according to Gallup, I do believe.
At what point? In what role?
Thanks for noting that God is as believable and well-evidenced as The Force, though. :)
Because, even though I don't think I even mentioned religion, you guys dragged it up, insisting that the Christian religion didn't have any problems coinciding with evolution. (I will have to chack back to when it was first dug up.) And, BTW, I do have a few responses I was going to post here, but I ran out of time, I saved them somewhere around here...I'll dig them up later, probably this weekend.
Well, we simply pointed out what the Vatican said, I believe in response to portraying evolution as some sort of side in a holy (unholy?) war, when it's simply a field of science, same as gravity, thermodynamics, geology.....etc.
-
Also, I didn't mention that, if evolution were true and God was not involved, and just kind of watched it happen, then he would be a liar, because the Bible states that He did indeed create everything. Now, if He's lying about creating the Earth, then why would you trust Him to save you from your sins and bring you to Heaven when you die? Why would you care about the said "sins" anyways?
The Bible doesnt say HOW god created, and it says that a day is a thosuand years. The story of Adam and Eve reads like a parable for the human condition, and Noahs ark is simply a mythologised local flood that took place in Mesopotamia at the time. Why does your Bible have to be 100% literal and 100% non-myth and non-legend to be true? Humans wrote the Bible, I know its hard for some fundamentalists to accept, but its true Im sorry.
Humans wrote it, fallible humans. Humans can be wrong, humans are flawed. To blindly believe on faith that the Bible is the ultimate authority over anything science can show is simply idolatory by definition, as you are worshipping the works of man t[the Bible] instead of the creator. After all, do you not believe God created the rocks? Did God not create the physical rules that goven the universe? Scientific analysis is the only objective way we can know anything, you want to replace that with unwielding absolute faith in a collection of books by largely unknown or obscure authors written thousands and thosuands of years ago.
Without God as the One to be responsible to because of His being your Creator, there is no 'wrong' or 'right', just whatever helps you to survive. If God had nothing to do with Creation, then I'm sorry, but He has no say in what we do.
Already addressed this "morality" argument at length in post #670.
, unless they evolve the ability to evade that nasty second law of thermodynamics.
Nonsence. Either put up or shut up about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics being some kind of problem for evolution, its been addressed countless times on this thread but you keep using it as an argument.
Even AIG say its bad argument for gods sake, and when organisations like AIG say its a bad argument you gotta know its really stupid.
So, either we must get rid of the Christian (and Muslim and Jewish) religions, or at least relegate them to something you believe in for no particular reason. Or, on the other hand...[/i] what if those Christians are right?
You're using Pascals Wager? Seriously?
:rolleyes: :doubt: Not impressed.
But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator.
No, some religions do not have a god at all.
n figure out which one's correct by studying the religions after you figure out that a Deity was involved.) So one would definitely hope that one could figure out whether or not God is Creator before one dies.
Assuming there is one, it cant be tested by science and faith isnt going to allow you to "know" anything at all.
Faith is believing in something when you have no evidence for, or when there is evidence to the contrary. Its unverifiable gut feelings that unfortunatly for you people from all religions feel and feel strongly about for their particular beliefs, so this is no way to be able to test if your beliefs are accurate.
Now there are plenty of scientists who would agree that some Intelligent force was involved with the creation of the world.
Theres many! Thats correct, but they know how to sererate their religious faith from science. Real scientists know how to do that, and know how science works.
Also, the dreaded Intelligent Design factor:
Why dreaded? Its been debunked for years anyway, but finially completly obliterated at the Dover trial. The Discovery Institute are nothing but dishonest liars. They lied blatently about their religious agenda. They lied about their connection to Creationism (Their text book Pandas to People was simply a Creationist text book with "creator" replaced with "designer") Michael Behe admitted in the trial that his definition of science was so broad that it would also included astrology! Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution" is one of their main arguments, which can be described as nothing better than a Creationist fraud they've gone on so long. They are a political group that want to side step the scientific process of experiments and peer review and go straight to the media, writing books and going to court to try and force it into public schools.
Also, here's (http://www.geocities.com/joshuap_richards/evolution_airlines.doc) an article that my pastor wrote a while back. (I'm sure it's no shocker to you guys that I go to church!!) :lol:
So, what do you think?
I wonder what goes through Creationists minds when they make this mathematical argument for how improbable evolution is. Its the same as saying ice or salt crystals are near impossible to form because the probability of the molocules just happening to be in the right place at the right time to too great.
-
So, Evolution is compatible with death being a result of mankind's rebellion, not a vital part of the origin of species?
Sure, but science cant comment on such religious ideas.
Wrong. There are plenty of religions where 'God' is not a creator.
Ahh. Many religions where there is no 'higher being' involved? Many religions where we just, err, well, appeared?
How about Taoism , Zen or Buddism? None of these require gods.
Okay, forgive me, I'm going to crack a joke you will probably not find funny: I can think of one such religion: Atheistic Evolutionism. :lol: - Hey, why aren't you laughing? C'mon, it's funny! :nervous: Stop looking at me like that!
...Thats a joke? Even if I were a Creationist that would be lame. :doubt:
This is the reason some Evolutionists should have their beliefs classified as a religion: they refuse to examine any alternative.
Of course they will, so long as its science. Intelligent Design isnt science.
You said it: no credible scientist would even consider intelligent design.
So they are not real scientists. You don't have to be an evolutionist to be credible. You just have to show your work.
He is right no scientist would consider Intelligent Design. Thats because Intelligent Design says its a scientific theory, but it isnt science. Science cant test the supernatural, but science will gladly give ID a chance if it ever came up with something that was testable and objective. IDs poster child of Irreducibly Complexity can be shown to be bad logic without even without turning to science. But the problem is guys in the Discovery Institute dont DO any science at all. They spend all their time lobbying school boards, and making presentations to the media. Thats not how you do science!
And I'm sure you mean evolutionary scientist, because, as has been pointed out, there are scientists who believe in ID, even YEC (although it's not such a stretch as you'd think); their field is just not in biology, which one might think was the only credible field of scientific study. All of the scientific fields are interrelated and affect the others.
I've been asking for an example of a credible Creationist source for years. Ive never been shown any Creationist that was either ignorent, misrepresented their qualifications and themselves as an authority, understood how science works, or that couldnt easily be shown to have misrepresented Evolution and/or the facts.
Really. That's interesting, given the total lack of evidence. "Evolution happened here, so it could happen elsewhere with different circumstances. Because Evolution can happen with different circumstances, we know it happened here because we are not the only way that life could have formed." OK. I'm trying to get the picture, but it's gone all circular on me. (If I missed the point, tell me what the point was again.)
You arent confusing abiogenesis with evolution again are you?
Since atheism is a religion, I would have absolutely no problem with that. ;)
Atheism is not a religion at all. How can it be, its simply defined as a nonbelief in god or gods. Materialist atheism is a much more specific form of atheism, which is also disbelief in the supernatural. None of these require faith, which I would have thought was a prerequisite of religion to be worthy of the name.
Here's one for you: Why don't you try and find out who made the arrow before whoever made it decides you're not listening? This Buddhist philosophy takes the afterlife as inevitable; if death is part of evolution, and evolution is how we got here, then there is no afterlife, unless it conveniently evolved at about the same time as us.
I dont believe in an afterlife, but most "evolutionists" are theists. Scientists and Christians like Ken Miller and the renouned palentologist and fiery Bible-believing pentacostol preacher Dr Rev Robbert Bakker have no problem with it either. The issue there is faith Jr.
That's one chance in 100000....followed by 75 PAGES of zeroes!
Poor maths doesnt prove anything.
(any support for 'plenty of scientists'?...)
I don't have the stats for scientists, but about 90% (I think more) of the general population in the US believes God had to be involved with the process at some point. That's according to Gallup, I do believe.
Big deal, Americans arent so smart.
http://www.fugly.com/media/videodir1153787340/Funny/interview_about_world_affairs.wmv
And science isnt decided by popular vote of an ignorent impressionable populous, but that is what Creationists pander to.
The Force is a binding, ubiquitous power that is the object of the Jedi and Sith monastic orders in the Star Wars universe.
Oops. Wrong one.
What do you mean "wrong"? The Force in Star Wars is based off Chi, the Taoist concept of mystical energy. (which like I said earlier is an atheistic religion)
-
Stop trying to find a hole in evolution and give us a reason to give Creationism or YEC a chance!
hm yes that is the whole arguement in a nutshell; both appear to be "theories" to the opposite side, bearing no weight and are far too disgusting to even consider. While I am a Christian, I do believe in microevolution, and maybe even the big bang was God creating the universe, but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support. As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.
All I can do to justify the claims of a God being up there to have created the universe, is that I look around and see how perfectly everything is shaped and formed to work in harmony - it has to have been designed, not randomized. Heck I bet has gotten annoyed/bored of us and has made loads of alien species, the universe is a pretty big pallet to draw on!
Well thats my opinion, nice to hear all of yours. :yes:
-
While I am a Christian, I do believe in microevolution, ,
Macro evolution is simply speciation, when a two populations become so distinct they can no longer breed successfully. We've seen this happen both in the lab and in nature. Thats pretty much all there is too it.
but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support. As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.
Of course it wouldnt, who told you that? Evolution never suggests it would ever do that, in fact if it did it would falsify commen decent not prove it.
Darwin proposed decent with modification, he never even suggested even at the time that any organism could change into something fundamentally different. Eveyrthing that has ever evolved has just been a modified version of whatever its ancesters were. We are still Eukaryotes, we are still vertebrates, we are still mammals, we are still apes. At no time in the future will we be anything other than modified apes. In the same way a lizard will never evolve into a non-lizard, just a modified lizard.
Im afraid you've been lied to about what Evolution is, Creationists "macro evolution" misrepresentation is notorious.
All I can do to justify the claims of a God being up there to have created the universe, is that I look around and see how perfectly everything is shaped and formed to work in harmony - it has to have been designed, not randomized.
Evolution is hardly random at all.
-
both appear to be "theories" to the opposite side
What the **** does that mean? A "theory"? What is this delusional definition of a "theory" you are touting? Argh! *pulls hair out*
-
but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support. As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.
Of course it wouldnt, who told you that? Evolution never suggests it would ever do that, in fact if it did it would falsify commen decent not prove it.
I believe he means the whole dinosaur>bird thing. And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.
-
And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.
Most likely as their education into the matter stops at watching Jurassic Park. :doubt:
-
hm yes that is the whole arguement in a nutshell; both appear to be "theories" to the opposite side, bearing no weight and are far too disgusting to even consider. While I am a Christian, I do believe in microevolution, and maybe even the big bang was God creating the universe, but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support. As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.
All I can do to justify the claims of a God being up there to have created the universe, is that I look around and see how perfectly everything is shaped and formed to work in harmony - it has to have been designed, not randomized. Heck I bet has gotten annoyed/bored of us and has made loads of alien species, the universe is a pretty big pallet to draw on!
Well thats my opinion, nice to hear all of yours. :yes:
29+ evidences for macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
NB: the reason things work in harmony is that we view them as working in harmony, because we could only develop to a stage of cogniscence by being 'in harmony' i.e. adapted to our environment. It's like, if you pour water into an ice cube tray (actually, this is a really trivial example rather than intended as a direct analogy), the water changes to a 'cube' type physical layout. Not because the water is a cube, and the tray was constructed to fit it, but because the water has to (or has the capacity to) 'adapt' to fit in that environment. (like I said, very trivial example; basic point is, just because this universe is suitable for us to exist in does not mean it is designed for us to exist in, it means we are 'designed' - by evolution - to exist within the universe)
:)
It's kind of like, also, how people can look in a Rorschach ink test and see a butterfly, or a persons face, etc.
-
but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support. As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.
Of course it wouldnt, who told you that? Evolution never suggests it would ever do that, in fact if it did it would falsify commen decent not prove it.
I believe he means the whole dinosaur>bird thing. And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.
Oh I see. Well Im sure thats what he meant anyway, thats how most professional Creationists (especially YECs) teach as what macro evolution is.
But back to the point, dinosaurs were not lizards. Richard Owen was the scientist who made up the name, "terrible lizards" because he didn't know the difference yet. Like I said before, you cant evolve out of your ancestry. So whatever we evolve into in the future, will always be a modified ape (a "kind" of ape), or in the case of birds - modified dinosaurs.
-
I suppose it's worth doubly reinforcing that evolution is diverging, not converging.
-
Since atheism is a religion
Since when?
Since it requires faith 2b
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>
and is defined by religion 1b(2) & 2
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
and religion 1b(2) & 2 combines religious 1 & faith 2b
Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
- re·li·gious·ly adverb
- re·li·gious·ness noun
You could say that the religion 1b(2) or 2 atheism is religious 1 faith 2b, as defined by atheism 2a or 2b:
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
I'm an atheist,
Dictionary.com definition =One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I suppose a belief or disbelief constitutes a religion. But this is a paradoxic situation, Which completely buggers my comprehensions of what i just said......... :confused:
See response to Kosh above. Help any?
Moreover, your assertion that 'atheistic evolutionism' is a religion is patently false. Primarily, 'atheist' means 'without religion', the 'absence of religion', so how can a philosophy revolving around the absence of religion be counted as religion?
::) See response to Kosh above.
One more thing, can you stop referring to the theory of Evolution as 'evolutionism' as if it is some sort of sinister, rival religion?
Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
- evo·lu·tion·ari·ly /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb
- evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- evo·lu·tion·ism /-sh&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- evo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective
Main Entry: ism
Pronunciation: 'i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief <we all have got to come to grips with our isms -- Jocelyn Elders>
Still got problems with my using the term [evolution 4b ism 1] (or 2 ;7 ... jk :lol: )?
Y'know, screw making a really long answer outlining what I mean. Show me a scientist that has conducted credible, peer-reviewed studies on the subject of Young-Earth Creationism. Then I will conceed that there are indeed scientists out there who not only believe YEC [who cares whether they do or not?], but can be cited as an authority on it.
...peer-reviewed by who? Who are these mystical peers, and what did they do to become members of the "peer group" without whose approval all research is worthless? I'm afraid that the Wright brothers ran afoul of the said group, as well as many others. But anyways, how can you tell if a scientist's work is peer-reviewed? He gets articles printed about him? I mean, I'm sure there are different peer groups around. Which one did you have in mind? I think you mean that the scientist needs to have his work published in a scientific journal, and critiqued by other scientists in his field. But if the bliddy journal won't publish it, then what? (I mean, the scientist is attaching his name to his work and asking for comment... what could be the problem?) Did you mean this (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html) group of peers & their publlications (http://www.creationresearch.org/matters.html)? :drevil: Obviously not, or you wouldn't have a problem. Exactly which group of peers are you talking about here?
Stop trying to find a hole in evolution and give us a reason to give Creationism or YEC a chance!
OK, now calm down. Take a deep breath. Slowly count to ten. Repeat this six times to yourself: YECs are friends, not fiends. :lol: Seriously, don't blow your stack. As previously stated, the universe is evidence of a creator, unless it formed itself, or perhaps was formed by beings from an alternate universe that formed itself (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg833632.html#msg833632) :wtf: whatever, Mefustae. Let me rephrase my Challenge (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg833252.html#msg833252) (Search for the words "there aren't any":
Challenge: come up with a theory besides A) "it was created" (by whatever means) or B) "it just happened" or "it just happened, and then it was created", which is the combination of A + B. :p You can't, because there aren't any.
It's not, though.
Religion - theism - is predicated on the belief of a supernatural influence upon life, whereas aetheism does not accept that premise. Moreso, theism / religion requires a 'framework' of belief, which aetheism doesn't (it's broader than that); to coin a phrase, it's essentially a criticism of the belief that life requires the supernatural.
In light of my response to Kosh, do you have a rebuttal?
(in any case, it still wouldn't change the fact that creationism / ID isn't science)
A) It would be impossible for creationism to be science, as creationism is the belief in creation, not the theory itself. ID, I believe, is the theory 5. And anyways, I believe you do mean scientific or scientific theory, to be picky.
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
Main Entry: sci·en·tif·ic
Pronunciation: "sI-&n-'ti-fik
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin scientificus producing knowledge, from Latin scient-, sciens + -i- + -ficus -fic
: of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science
Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Science would have no problem with God creating the universe, but it would not be provable, ie, fact 3:
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
1 : a thing done: as a obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact> c archaic : ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth
As the sample sentence in fact 3 states, the evidence (1a or 1b) gives proof to the fact.
Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&n(t)s, -v&-"den(t)s
Function: noun
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
- in evidence
1 : to be seen : CONSPICUOUS <trim lawns...are everywhere in evidence -- American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2 : as evidence
The problem is, the evidence can be used to fit evolution or creation, depending on how you interpret it. It just depends on who is interpreting the evidence correctly.
The arrow analogy is from Buddha; specifically, that worrying about the afterlife is like worrying about the maker of the arrow rather than removing it.
...And I was saying it would be better to get to know the maker of the arrow before He shot at you, if you get my drift. I wasn't trying to use Buddha's analogy, I was making my own.
No, no, no... for not using it. Seriously, though, what do you mean? (How does He supposedly punish us for using our brains? )
Well, you're the one aiming to remove the results of millenia of rational investigation in favour of a story, by (trying to) contradicting a scientific, evidenced theory by half truth (at best; for example citing the 2nd law erroneously again).
That answers my half-joke, half-point at the beginning of my serious question. You really thought that the question was about God punishing you for using/not using your brains? Are you going to answer the main thrust of my question now?
Seriously, though, what do you mean? (How does He supposedly punish us for using our brains?)
Plus, I'd like to know why I have a big wodge of entirely unnecessary lower intestine, which has no purpose or need except to facilitate flatulence. For example.
Is it just me, or did you just answer your own question ("...except to facilitate flatulence")? Ever tried living without flatulating? It gets pretty painful.
And to think I linked an abiogenesis article earlier explaining how wrong these types of 'one off' chance calculations are. Ah well, last time I link this; I'll assume you missed it; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html (with sources)
You have to keep in mind that each time I check back here there's about 10 people who have responded, and their responses are about as long as mine. I'll check it out.
Then you know that the resulting (citing) text is pre-biased, unscientific and worthless as any sort of factual source - picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion, the antithesis of science and rationality.
I suppose you'd have us just look at the opposing theories and try to compromise them into the middle then? Of course the text will support one side or the other. You were expecting proof for evolution in that article? You think that there is no proof for creation, and the only proof there is is that which supports evolution? (And you're not biased?) You've got to realize that as I've said, there's "proof" on both sides. The truth depends on who's interpreting it correctly.
BTW picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion... hmm. You spend 10+ years of your life learning to become a scientist. You are taught by evolutionary scientists, as you cannot even be an evolutionary scientist and point out flaws in the evolutionary theory, and expect to keep your job. So you become an evolutionist. Then, you are sent into the field to study said "evidence". Gee, makes me wonder how you're gonna interpret it! You could say the same for creationist scientists, but the thing is, to be unbiased you have to consider all possible theories that come up. The creationist scientist already considers evolution, because that's usually his former viewpoint. If he hasn't considered it already, he will find it in abundance in the scientific field. The evolutionary scientist, on the other hand, would throw out the creation viewpoint as "discredited" without even considering it, as he thinks that his peers have already done all of the work for him in discrediting creationism. That is, unless he realizes that alot of evidence is not even being dealt with, I guess because the evolutionary scientist don't think its worth their time. ...Also, just when did the evolutionist camp decide they had enough evidence on their side to not consider ideas brought forth by their creationist colleagues? And what did that evidence consist of? I do wonder.
Well, we simply pointed out what the Vatican said, I believe in response to portraying evolution as some sort of side in a holy (unholy?) war, when it's simply a field of science, same as gravity, thermodynamics, geology.....etc.
I will have to look that up. Darn. Or you could look it up. Never mind. I think it was m. (m?...) BTW He's back now, I brought him back from camp yesterday. Can't wait, heh, heh. I do hope he'll find a terminal where he has time to think about the thoughts he's trying to outline, though. Or we'll get more of this:
Sheesh. You guys take up half a !!@#!! page with posts that consist of "You're wrong! We have proved it!" and false assumptions. ("The dating machine says that this artifact is 100,000 years old, so it must be! That proves that creationists are wrong; therefore when they say our dating methods are inaccurate, they're wrong!") :wtf:
and, of course, this:
Sheesh. I take up half a !!@#!! page with posts that consist of "You're wrong! We have proved it!" and false assumptions. :wtf:
Fixed it for you.
It's funny ( :lol: ), but you can't really learn anything from it, except to be careful not to make mistakes when posting on a controversial topic.
The Bible doesnt say HOW god created, and it says that a day is a thosuand years.
Exodus 20:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=20&verse=11&version=31&context=verse) 2 Peter 3:8-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:8-9;&version=31;) is talking about a day being a thousand years with the Lord, not in a chronological sense. ie, one of two explanations (or both): Time doesn't bother God. (Which is likely, given context in verse 9) or If you are with God, time will not bother you. The same verses in the King James Translation (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%203:8-9;&version=9;) would probably help understanding, I think it's a bit clearer in this case.
Why does your Bible have to be 100% literal and 100% non-myth and non-legend to be true? Humans wrote the Bible, I know its hard for some fundamentalists to accept, but its true Im sorry.
2 Peter 1:20-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:20-21;&version=49;)
OK, if the Bible is written by fallible man, then yes, none of it really matters, it's the thought that counts, you can pick and choose.
Scientific analysis is the only objective way we can know anything, you want to replace that with unwielding absolute faith *snip*
Nah. Just don't exclude evidence based on your own prejudice as to how the world began and how we were formed. Once someone sees the evidence (for both sides), they might decide to learn more and study the Bible or something. You cannot say that creationism is unscientific just because it's not accepted by evolutionary peers. Can those peers disprove the evidence? Ignoring is not disproving. I wonder how many people would watch a televised debate with credible scientist from both sides. I think alot of people would, as long as the debaters didn't fall for hiding their arguments behind scientific lingo. They would have to either explain what they were saying or have someone do it for them.
Already addressed this "morality" argument at length in post #670.
You could have given me a link. I like being lazy. http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.670.html That easy. Or even better, http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg833629.html#msg833629 saves me scrolling. Wah, I have to find it? Okay.
First of all you dont hear of many atheists that go killing raping and pillaging. I dont know why fundamentalists seem to be so oblivious to that fact when they sit down and type such nonsence. Interesting. I know that some Christians commit criminal acts, too, but do what do you really think the majority of "killers, rapists and thieves" are? Nothing against the atheists, but their viewpoint does relieve them from accountability after they die, so if they can get away from the authorities down here, then why not? Imagine this scenario: It is dusk, and you are taking a shortcut through a back alley in New York City when your car dies. It won't start, and you forgot your cell phone. You get out of the car and head towards the nearest busy street you can hear, which is still out of sight. You hear a door opening, and look behind you to see three large males walking rapidly towards you, talking in undertones amongst themselves. Would you be more comfortable to learn that A) They were Atheists. B) They were Muslims. C) They were Buddhists. D) They were Christians.
Interestingly, Confucious the Chinese atheist talked about loving your neighbour and treating others as you would like to be treated centuries before Jesus. Really. That's interesting. BTW, what nationality was Jesus? Oh, and I do believe he meant to continue loving your neighbor...Leviticus 19:9-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:9-18;&version=31;), emphasis on verse 18.
Buddism is probably they only religion I know of that doesnt have blood on its hands.I do not have the sources to prove it, but I sincerely doubt that there is any religion that doesn't have murderers, rapists, or thieves that claim it as their own. I'm sure you would agree.
Second, animals still manage to live with each other including insects like bees and ants where thousands of them spend their entire lives in service of one or two queens that will eventually mate.That works equally well with evolution or creation.
No there are no absolute morals. "No there are no absolute morals...in my opinion"
What we have is inbuilt desire to get along with our fellow human. If humans didnt get along we would have probably died out long ago because we couldnt get along. Tell that to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Bashar Al-Assad. (I included the last ones because of their human right records and/or their stated desire to drive Israel "into the sea"...which would be like us threatening to turn Iran into a "sea of glass".) These folks certainly didn't/don't think that they were/are supposed to get along! Don't forget all the serial killers, sleeping away their years in jail cells, and the rapists and thieves etc... :wtf: is wrong with them? How does evolution explain them? Most of them didn't do what they did out of a need for survival!
Thirdly, I do love it when literalist Bible Believing Christians being bring this up. You guys try and lecture to us about morality when you believe in some of the most bloody and disgusting books ever written. Thats right Im talking about the Old Testament here. I know Christians get around having to perform the ridiculous laws of Leviticus, but these were still supposedly laws given by your God. And how many times did God have people killed? How many times did God order his chosen people to whipe out entire civilisations "without mercy", to pillage destroy and kill every living thing including animals. Sometimes the Bible God says its because they were wicked wicked people, another times he says its his chosen peoples "inheritance". The actions of his "chosen people" and their God, can only be accurately be described as a murdering horde of barbarians. You pretty much answered your own question, although I should clarify; It's because they were wicked wicked people, and it's his chosen people's "inheritance". I think that offering toddlers as live offerings to a god to bring good luck or what the heck ever would qualify you for the "wicked wicked" title. (I'm not mentioning the other things they did...) And, if you notice, in Genesis 15:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2015:16;&version=31;), God gives this "wicked wicked" society more time, because their sin had not yet reached its "full measure" - so God is patient, but has a limit.
The New Testament is admittedly much better, but still has some pretty stupid morals in places. This God has to kill his own son That's a relational, not original (origin, or source) sense. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - the Son is Son in relation to the Father, and the Trinity is Three persons in One. The Son "took on flesh" (put on a physical body) and came down to Terra to save us from our sins.
, but Christians tell us it was just him in in human form, for our sins. And why does he have to do that? Well Paul tells us, because without bloodshed there can be no forgiveness! The only reason I can see for this surpreme God killing himself is to make a point and then make us feel guilty for making him do it! You fail to realize the full import of sin. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ." We are eternal beings, we have a soul. When we die, we do not cease to exist. God is holy and must punish sin. Therefore, if He carried out His law in regards to us, we would be doomed for all of eternity. God provided a way out of this through His Son (second person of Trinity) Jesus, who He raised from the dead the third day after He was killed. For an overview, look at Romans 9:6-10:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209:6-10:13;&version=31;)
What Creationists believe is worse still, that it was becuase of Adam and Eve that Jesus killed himself. No, because of Adam and Eve and every single one of their descendants. And Jesus didn't kill Himself, He allowed Himself to be killed.
That means we didnt have anything to do with this mess anyway. Everyone is a sinner, by birth (Psalms 51:5) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2051:5;&version=31;) and by choice (Romans 3-4) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203-4;&version=31;)
God as we can see from the OT in several place, passes down the punishment for generations. Exodus 20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2020:5-6;&version=31;) and Ezekiel 18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel%2018:19-30;&version=31;) would appear to contradict each other, but they don't. As this site (http://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html) explains, Exodus is talking about consequences, and Ezekiel about punishment. (Read the links to Exodus & Ezekiel, it should make sense.)
I could go on and on about this, I guess you'll have to now.
but I see theres more to cover.
Anyways, all of these points are moot and void if we're talking about a book made by man, based on a false story of how Terra came into being. As I've said before, some attempts have been made to rationalize that God used evolution, but I don't see how that could reconcile with Romans 5:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=5&verse=12&version=31&context=verse).
Nonsence. Either put up or shut up about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics being some kind of problem for evolution, its been addressed countless times on this thread but you keep using it as an argument.
I do believe that law basically means that energy naturally cascades from more available to less available forms, correct?
You're using Pascals Wager? Seriously?
No. You think I went through all of this just to explain something as simple as Pascal's Wager?!? ::)
But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator.
No, some religions do not have a god at all.
*smacks self*
That's right, I forgot about atheism!! :lol:
Seriously, though:
The Muslim religion I am less familiar with. The Jewish religion is the same as the Christian, except they don't believe that God sent Jesus as Savior, they think He's still coming.
But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator.
I just messed up and made a new paragraph where I shouldn't have. I was talking the three big monotheistic religions (Christian, Jewish, Muslim). As a broader statement, I don't think there's any religion except atheism that doesn't have a Higher Being involved (essentially, ID).
Assuming there is one, it cant be tested by science and faith isnt going to allow you to "know" anything at all.
Faith is believing in something when you have no evidence for, or when there is evidence to the contrary. Its unverifiable gut feelings that unfortunatly for you people from all religions feel and feel strongly about for their particular beliefs, so this is no way to be able to test if your beliefs are accurate.
Wrong. I believe you're talking Fideism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism), not faith. I mean faith 2a(1) & (2), 2b(2) and 3:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF
- on faith : without question <took everything he said on faith>
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
I wonder what goes through Creationists minds when they make this mathematical argument for how improbable evolution is. Its the same as saying ice or salt crystals are near impossible to form because the probability of the molocules just happening to be in the right place at the right time to too great.
I do believe you should find that the chances of evolution happening aren't just minute, they're so small that the opposite must be true. Your argument above sounds sort of like, "I think, therefore I am, I am, therefore I evolved!".
So, Evolution is compatible with death being a result of mankind's rebellion, not a vital part of the origin of species?
Sure, but science cant comment on such religious ideas.
So, mankind sinning before they evolved so that death could come into the world and make natural selection work is perfectly, scientifically, sound?
This is the reason some Evolutionists should have their beliefs classified as a religion: they refuse to examine any alternative.
Of course they will, so long as its science. Intelligent Design isnt science.
You'd say that theology isn't, either, but look at science 2a (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science). It's a scientific theory.
Science cant test the supernatural, but science will gladly give ID a chance if it ever came up with something that was testable and objective.
...Such as the fact that coding doesn't happen? Of course, you couldn't test that, as it'd take a few million years. Intelligent 1a (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/intelligent) -> Intelligence 2a or 2b (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/intelligence). Intelligent Design 1, 2a:
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/design)Main Entry: 1de·sign
Pronunciation: di-'zIn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, to outline, indicate, mean, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French designer to designate, from Medieval Latin designare, from Latin, to mark out, from de- + signare to mark -- more at SIGN
transitive verb
1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : DEVISE, CONTRIVE
2 a : to conceive and plan out in the mind <he designed the perfect crime> b : to have as a purpose : INTEND <she designed to excel in her studies> c : to devise for a specific function or end <a book designed primarily as a college textbook>
3 archaic : to indicate with a distinctive mark, sign, or name
4 a : to make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of b : to draw the plans for <design a building>
intransitive verb
1 : to conceive or execute a plan
2 : to draw, lay out, or prepare a design
- de·sign·ed·ly /-'zI-n&d-lE/ adverb
So, an Intelligent being Designing the universe isn't scientific? No, it's just not scientifically provable. There's evidence, not proof for, both atheistic evolution and ID, again depending on how you interpret them.
-
He is right no scientist would consider Intelligent Design. Thats because Intelligent Design says its a scientific theory, but it isnt science. Science cant test the supernatural, but science will gladly give ID a chance if it ever came up with something that was testable and objective. IDs poster child of Irreducibly Complexity can be shown to be bad logic without even without turning to science. But the problem is guys in the Discovery Institute dont DO any science at all. They spend all their time lobbying school boards, and making presentations to the media. Thats not how you do science!
How Discovery Institute Functions
Discovery Institute fellows submit their analyses and proposals for dialogue through seminars, conferences, and debates; they produce reports, articles, books, Congressional testimony, films and an interactive Internet website that helps spread the knowledge of the Institute's ideas. They also consult with elected and appointed officials, business people, academics, media and the general public to show how 21st century humanity can benefit from the principles, policies, and practices advocated by the Institute.
The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities.
Fellows, members, board, advisors and staff of Discovery constitute a distributive public policy community, connected through cyberspace, with headquarters in Seattle and an office in Washington, D.C. Fellows are multi-disciplinary in background and approach. A research and advocacy project is selected when it is in harmony with Discovery's mission, when the Institute can make an original and significant contribution to the issue's development and when it is within the Institute's resources. Most issues selected are of national or international scope and fall in the fields of science, technology, environment and economy, international affairs, culture, defense, legal reform, religion and public life, transportation, and institutions of representative democracy, as well as bi-national cooperation in the international Cascadia region.
Financially, the institute is a non-profit educational foundation funded by philanthropic foundation grants, corporate and individual contributions and the dues of Institute members (http://www.discovery.org/membershipInfo.php).
Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:
- supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
- supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;
- supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.
- encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well is its strengths.
Discovery's Center for Science and Culture has more than 40 Fellows, including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities.
The Center's Director is Dr. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge University.
The Center's Associate Director is Dr. John G. West, who holds a Ph.D. in Government from Claremont Graduate University and a B.A. in Communications from the University of Washington.
Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave., Suite 808 — Seattle, WA 98101
206-292-0401 phone — 206-682-5320 fax
email: [email protected]
Program Directors
Stephen C Meyer (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=11&isFellow=true)
Associate Directors
John G West (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=18&isFellow=true)
Senior Fellows
Michael J Behe (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=31&isFellow=true)
[url=http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51&isFellow=true]David Berlinski (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51&isFellow=true)
Paul Chien (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=52&isFellow=true)
William A Dembski (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=32&isFellow=true)
David DeWolf (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=78&isFellow=true)
Guillermo Gonzalez (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=33&isFellow=true)
Michael Newton Keas (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=79&isFellow=true)
Jay W Richards (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=9&isFellow=true)
Wesley J Smith (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=13&isFellow=true)
Jonathan Wells (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=41&isFellow=true)
Benjamin Wiker (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=40&isFellow=true)
Jonathan Witt (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=97&isFellow=true)
Fellows
Francis J Beckwith (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=43&isFellow=true)
Raymond Bohlin (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=53&isFellow=true)
Walter Bradley (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=50&isFellow=true)
J. Budziszewski (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=39&isFellow=true)
John Angus Campbell (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=110&isFellow=true)
Robert Lowry Clinton (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=84&isFellow=true)
Jack Collins (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=38&isFellow=true)
Robin Collins (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=54&isFellow=true)
William Lane Craig (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=85&isFellow=true)
Brian Frederick
Mark Hartwig (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=87&isFellow=true)
Kenneth Hermann
Cornelius G Hunter (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=208&isFellow=true)
Robert Kaita (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=34&isFellow=true)
Dean Kenyon (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=89&isFellow=true)
Robert C Koons (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=55&isFellow=true)
Forrest M Mims (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=35&isFellow=true)
Scott Minnich (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=90&isFellow=true)
J.P. Moreland (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=56&isFellow=true)
Paul Nelson (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=45&isFellow=true)
Nancy Pearcey (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=44&isFellow=true)
Joseph Poulshock (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=49&isFellow=true)
Pattle Pak-Toe Pun
John Mark Reynolds (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=92&isFellow=true)
Henry Schaefer (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=94&isFellow=true)
Wolfgang Smith
Charles Thaxton (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=96&isFellow=true)
Richard Weikart (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=37&isFellow=true)
You arent confusing abiogenesis with evolution again are you?
abiogenesis=The creation of the first life. evolution=What that life had better have done in an awful big hurry if it hoped to survive past the first generation. How many abiogenesis incidents did we need before we got one that evolved the ability to replicate itself? Your slate is being wiped clean each time the original organism expires. And, we'd better hope that it evolves the ability to replicate itself correctly!
Atheism is not a religion at all. How can it be, its simply defined as a nonbelief in god or gods. Materialist atheism is a much more specific form of atheism, which is also disbelief in the supernatural. None of these require faith, which I would have thought was a prerequisite of religion to be worthy of the name.
See response to Kosh at beginning of post.
I dont believe in an afterlife, but most "evolutionists" are theists. Scientists and Christians like Ken Miller and the renouned palentologist and fiery Bible-believing pentacostol preacher Dr Rev Robbert Bakker have no problem with it either. The issue there is faith Jr.
Erm, so they believe that God is, but that He is totaly inconsequential, because He had nothing to do with our being here? Is that what you mean, Ed Broadshawl? (Sorry, that was for "Jr." - jr2 doesn't stand for "Junior 2") Or that he did have something to do with our being here, but there's no proof of that, and we should just take His word for it, because He said so, and God doesn't lie, except in places like Exodus 20:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2020:11;&version=31;)?
Poor maths doesn't prove anything.
Neither does poor spelling x2.
Big deal, Americans arent so smart.
Funny how they've got all the tech, though.
http://www.fugly.com/videos/5807/interview_about_world_affairs.html
Funny. In a canned sort of way. You do know that those clips were canned, right?
And science isnt decided by popular vote of an ignorent impressionable populous, but that is what Creationists pander to.
Career advise: Don't ever run for public office, unless you lie about the people you want to vote for you. But, on a more serious note, that's why we have three branches of government balancing each other. That way we can't turn inside out with one fickle vote of the public. It'd take about three or four votes in a row to get that started, and even then, it would be reversible.
What do you mean "wrong"? The Force in Star Wars is based off Chi, the Taoist concept of mystical energy. (which like I said earlier is an atheistic religion)
Is said force intelligent?
both appear to be "theories" to the opposite side
What the **** does that mean? A "theory"? What is this delusional definition of a "theory" you are touting? Argh! *pulls hair out*
*sigh*
theory 5:
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
I believe he means the whole dinosaur>bird thing. And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.
Because you can hardly have the darn things evolving for a million years without having a million remains showing all the various stages in-between, probably in the same place as others like it. (And, if fossils are so hard to form, then how come the fossils we do find are all fully functioning kinds? You would expect some in-between forms aka "missing links" to be found.)
Most likely as their education into the matter stops at watching Jurassic Park. :doubt:
Not likely, given the fact that evolution is taught in 100% of public high schools and state universities. Hey, if you're lucky you might hear about ID!
hm yes that is the whole arguement in a nutshell; both appear to be "theories" to the opposite side, bearing no weight and are far too disgusting to even consider. While I am a Christian, I do believe in microevolution, and maybe even the big bang was God creating the universe, but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support. As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.
All I can do to justify the claims of a God being up there to have created the universe, is that I look around and see how perfectly everything is shaped and formed to work in harmony - it has to have been designed, not randomized. Heck I bet has gotten annoyed/bored of us and has made loads of alien species, the universe is a pretty big pallet to draw on!
Well thats my opinion, nice to hear all of yours. :yes:
29+ evidences for macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
NB: the reason things work in harmony is that we view them as working in harmony, because we could only develop to a stage of cogniscence by being 'in harmony' i.e. adapted to our environment. It's like, if you pour water into an ice cube tray (actually, this is a really trivial example rather than intended as a direct analogy), the water changes to a 'cube' type physical layout. Not because the water is a cube, and the tray was constructed to fit it, but because the water has to (or has the capacity to) 'adapt' to fit in that environment. (like I said, very trivial example; basic point is, just because this universe is suitable for us to exist in does not mean it is designed for us to exist in, it means we are 'designed' - by evolution - to exist within the universe)
:)
It's kind of like, also, how people can look in a Rorschach ink test and see a butterfly, or a persons face, etc.
No, evolution does not "design" us to fit together in harmony; it only favors those that reproduce the most efficiently and manage to survive the best. That could favor working together in harmony until you started running out of resources. And if you did, you'd have to evolve into a predator awfully fast, before you starved.
but I'm afraid that macroevolution doesn't bear enough weight yet for me to support. As far as I can see, a lizard can evolve into another breed of lizard but its still a lizard, never changing to a bird etc.
Of course it wouldnt, who told you that? Evolution never suggests it would ever do that, in fact if it did it would falsify commen decent not prove it.
I believe he means the whole dinosaur>bird thing. And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.
Oh I see. Well Im sure thats what he meant anyway, thats how most professional Creationists (especially YECs) teach as what macro evolution is.
But back to the point, dinosaurs were not lizards. Richard Owen was the scientist who made up the name, "terrible lizards" because he didn't know the difference yet. Like I said before, you cant evolve out of your ancestry. So whatever we evolve into in the future, will always be a modified ape (a "kind" of ape), or in the case of birds - modified dinosaurs.
Yes, I believe the word used before "dinosaurs" was probably "dragon" or "sea serpent" or the like.
Birds are modified dinosaurs? How did they manage to evolve hollow bones at the same time as wings at the same time as stronger muscles to power those wings at the same time as larger lungs to give oxygen to said muscles at the same time as a set of legs that could take the landing? Before you had anything close to a working product, you would have a liability that would be culled.
I suppose it's worth doubly reinforcing that evolution is diverging, not converging.
Diverging, as in separating out from a common source, vs converging, or merging to a common destination. Ok, I must have missed it. Who said that we were evolving to a common destination?
Anyways... I was kind of hoping to get back to some of the stuff I hadn't answered previously. Oh, well, maybe next time.
Meanwhile, have a look at these:
Evolutionism: The New Intolerance (http://www.geocities.com/joshuap_richards/evolutionism_the_new_intolerance.doc)
Scientific Intolerance (http://www.geocities.com/joshuap_richards/scientific_intolerance.doc)
I have articles that have more to do with the thread topic, but I have to go through them. Meanwhile, have a look.
PS The address given in those articles is outdated. The e-mail still works, though.
EDIT: Darn 50,000 char limit. Oh, well, I guess I'll just pull an Ed. ;)
-
I'm bored so i'll put my previous frustration aside and just point out the most obvious flaws in your reasoning, leaving the rest for the other lads...
*Atheism is a religion*
Just get this through your head; Atheism is not a religion. It's like saying colourless is a colour. It's like saying flavourless is a flavour.
Atheism is not a religion, end of story, and to say it is just makes you look foolish.
And, for the record, I objected to your use of 'evolutionist' because you had imbued it with 'sinister rival religion' connotations. I don't care if you use the word, but when you use it to effectively say evolution is akin to some sort of cult, it's just annoying.
One more thing, can you stop referring to the theory of Evolution as 'evolutionism' as if it is some sort of sinister, rival religion?
Still got problems with my using the term [evolution 4b ism 1] (or 2 ;7 ... jk :lol: )?
Y'know, screw making a really long answer outlining what I mean. Show me a scientist that has conducted credible, peer-reviewed studies on the subject of Young-Earth Creationism. Then I will conceed that there are indeed scientists out there who not only believe YEC [who cares whether they do or not?], but can be cited as an authority on it.
...peer-reviewed by who? Who are these mystical peers, and what did they do to become members of the "peer group" without whose approval all research is worthless? I'm afraid that the Wright brothers ran afoul of the said group, as well as many others. But anyways, how can you tell if a scientist's work is peer-reviewed? He gets articles printed about him? I mean, I'm sure there are different peer groups around. Which one did you have in mind? I think you mean that the scientist needs to have his work published in a scientific journal, and critiqued by other scientists in his field. But if the bliddy journal won't publish it, then what? (I mean, the scientist is attaching his name to his work and asking for comment... what could be the problem?) Did you mean this (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html) group of peers & their publlications (http://www.creationresearch.org/matters.html)? :drevil: Obviously not, or you wouldn't have a problem. Exactly which group of peers are you talking about here?
Who the **** do you think is meant when you say 'peer review', it means your work is reviewed by your academic/scientific peers to make sure you didn't just fudge the whole thing. Honestly, it's not that hard a premise to grasp.
Now, there is a small thing you have to remember; when you're a Bible scholar, and you write a paper on your research into the Bible and get it published, it is peer-reviewed by your peers, fellow bible scholars. If that same bible scholar was to write a paper on how Evolution got it wrong, then it must be peer reviewed by biologists and soforth, peers versed in evolution, to make sure there are no factual errors. It kind of defeats the purpose of a peer review when you have people completely uneducated in evolution [such as those people from the 'christian research' group] reviewing a paper that challenges evolution. There, is that so hard to understand?
Now, I know what you're thinking, you're probably thinking that scientists versed in Evolution will simply tear apart a paper challenging Evolution because it opposes their ideas. Well, you see, you'd have to be a paranoid moron to think that, end of story.
OK, now calm down. Take a deep breath. Slowly count to ten. Repeat this six times to yourself: YECs are friends, not fiends. :lol: Seriously, don't blow your stack. As previously stated, the universe is evidence of a creator, unless it formed itself, or perhaps was formed by beings from an alternate universe that formed itself (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg833632.html#msg833632) :wtf: whatever, Mefustae. Let me rephrase my Challenge (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.msg833252.html#msg833252) (Search for the words "there aren't any":
Challenge: come up with a theory besides A) "it was created" (by whatever means) or B) "it just happened" or "it just happened, and then it was created", which is the combination of A + B. :p You can't, because there aren't any.
Wow, you totally have me there. I mean, first you insult me, then you make a completely unfounded and nonsensical assertion, and then you insult me again! You win!
Seriously though, I got annoyed before because of your attitude; someone makes a point, you completely ignore it in favour of you own ideas, flaunting whatever was said with that superior ****ing attitude of yours. You can understand what that may annoy some people.
Now, I really would like to give you what-for regarding those assertions regarding universal creation, but this is a thread on Evolution, and nowhere does Evolution say anything at all about the creation of the universe, so there is no point discussing it.
(in any case, it still wouldn't change the fact that creationism / ID isn't science)
A) It would be impossible for creationism to be science, as creationism is the belief in creation, not the theory itself. ID, I believe, is the theory 5. And anyways, I believe you do mean scientific or scientific theory, to be picky.
Creation is not theory. Intelligent Design is not theory. I'll conceed, 'theory' in a colloquial sense may apply, but not scientific theory, which is what counts in this discussion. We have explained to you and people like you time after time after time as to why neither are Scientific Theory, so just drop it.
Science would have no problem with God creating the universe, but it would not be provable, ie, fact 3:
As the sample sentence in fact 3 states, the evidence (1a or 1b) gives proof to the fact.
The problem is, the evidence can be used to fit evolution or creation, depending on how you interpret it. It just depends on who is interpreting the evidence correctly.
Praytell, what exactly is this evidence that can be used to support creation? What's that? You're full of ****? Oh, very well then. Moving on.
I suppose you'd have us just look at the opposing theories and try to compromise them into the middle then? Of course the text will support one side or the other. You were expecting proof for evolution in that article? You think that there is no proof for creation, and the only proof there is is that which supports evolution? (And you're not biased?) You've got to realize that as I've said, there's "proof" on both sides. The truth depends on who's interpreting it correctly.
Correctamundo, a word i've never used before... and never will again. You're completely correct in that statement, not your statement that the evidence can be proof for both ideas, but that Aldo does in fact think there is no evidence for creation, and he's absolutely correct. Stop talking about this phantom evidence and produce it.
BTW picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion... hmm. You spend 10+ years of your life learning to become a scientist. You are taught by evolutionary scientists, as you cannot even be an evolutionary scientist and point out flaws in the evolutionary theory, and expect to keep your job. So you become an evolutionist. Then, you are sent into the field to study said "evidence". Gee, makes me wonder how you're gonna interpret it! You could say the same for creationist scientists, but the thing is, to be unbiased you have to consider all possible theories that come up. The creationist scientist already considers evolution, because that's usually his former viewpoint. If he hasn't considered it already, he will find it in abundance in the scientific field. The evolutionary scientist, on the other hand, would throw out the creation viewpoint as "discredited" without even considering it, as he thinks that his peers have already done all of the work for him in discrediting creationism. That is, unless he realizes that alot of evidence is not even being dealt with, I guess because the evolutionary scientist don't think its worth their time. ...Also, just when did the evolutionist camp decide they had enough evidence on their side to not consider ideas brought forth by their creationist colleagues? And what did that evidence consist of? I do wonder.
Ooooooh, I see. I understand it all now, you're not ignorant, you just paranoid. I'll let you in on a little secret, you're absolutely correct. There is a conspiracy to keep creationist ideas down, a massive, global conspiracy that has been raging for the past 140 years to overthrow the righteous and take over the world in the name of the dark arts of Science.
I'll put this in terms you can understand. THERE. IS. NO. EVIDENCE. FOR. CREATION.[/i] Just consider that for a second. You want to turn your back on 140 years of scientific progress, fine by me. You want to besmirch the name of every scientist ever to work on the theory of Evolution, you can just get ****ed.
Because you can hardly have the darn things evolving for a million years without having a million remains showing all the various stages in-between, probably in the same place as others like it. (And, if fossils are so hard to form, then how come the fossils we do find are all fully functioning kinds? You would expect some in-between forms aka "missing links" to be found.)
You've got to be kidding me. We've been over this again and again and AGAIN! I'm going to assume you're just kidding around now, because nobody could be that goddamn ignorant. I mean, for one, the thread started with *shock* a transitional fossil!
Birds are modified dinosaurs? How did they manage to evolve hollow bones at the same time as wings at the same time as stronger muscles to power those wings at the same time as larger lungs to give oxygen to said muscles at the same time as a set of legs that could take the landing? Before you had anything close to a working product, you would have a liability that would be culled.
PROOF!! I HAVE IT! Hard proof that you are in fact only reading the parts of our posts that you can easily rebuff. I mean, I can recall multiple times that multiple people have said that evolution is gradual, and then you go and assume that everything happens at once and thus you've proven evolution is false.
Now, forgive me if i've been insulting... actually, stuff that, you're acting like an insolent, stubborn fool, refusing to even open his mind to anything other than your own beliefs, and you'll get no quarter from me.
-
I'm on a laptop and my fingers hurt from this keyboard, so I'll be brief. I'll point out, though, that the likes of the Discovery Institute are effectively propagandistic organisations whose key 'scientists' are not involved or active in the correct fields to give an intelligent contribution (if I get round to it, I'll peruse that big link of biogs and point out how x, y, etc don't have applicable knowledge or peer-reviewed research).
Ok, here goes.
In light of my response to Kosh, do you have a rebuttal?
Why don't you tell me what I believe, first? I mean, if you're defining my rational opinion as a belief, maybe you should explain that? I don't believe in monsters under my bed, does that make that a religion (anti-monstertarism)?
A) It would be impossible for creationism to be science, as creationism is the belief in creation, not the theory itself. ID, I believe, is the theory 5. And anyways, I believe you do mean scientific or scientific theory, to be picky.
So, it's theology and not science.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=christian%20science
Noun
* S: (n) Christian Science, Church of Christ Scientist (Protestant denomination founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866)
* S: (n) Christian Science (religious system based on teachings of Mary Baker Eddy emphasizing spiritual healing)
The problem is, the evidence can be used to fit evolution or creation, depending on how you interpret it. It just depends on who is interpreting the evidence correctly.
Um, you do know the scientific method, don't you?
Probably not, given that last statement.......sigh. We've addressed these things multiple times; shown how ID/creationists misrepresent not just evidence but evolutionary theory to try and make some nebulous point.
...And I was saying it would be better to get to know the maker of the arrow before He shot at you, if you get my drift. I wasn't trying to use Buddha's analogy, I was making my own.
Except there is no arrow. You're presuming the existence of the metaphorical arrow and the metaphorical shooter; which goes in the opposite direction of the analogy I was making and back onto the realm of presumption.
Is it just me, or did you just answer your own question ("...except to facilitate flatulence")? Ever tried living without flatulating? It gets pretty painful.
Um, you don't really understand. We don't need the lower intestine. Atall. It's facilitation role is providing a region where stuff can sit and decompose to cause methane expulsion (i.e. smelly farts). There are more than a few people who have had it removed - and not out of necessity but even vanity.
Even then, if you wanted to look, there are tonnes and tonnes of non-optimal designs in nature to be found.
I suppose you'd have us just look at the opposing theories and try to compromise them into the middle then? Of course the text will support one side or the other. You were expecting proof for evolution in that article? You think that there is no proof for creation, and the only proof there is is that which supports evolution? (And you're not biased?) You've got to realize that as I've said, there's "proof" on both sides. The truth depends on who's interpreting it correctly.
BTW picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion... hmm. You spend 10+ years of your life learning to become a scientist. You are taught by evolutionary scientists, as you cannot even be an evolutionary scientist and point out flaws in the evolutionary theory, and expect to keep your job. So you become an evolutionist. Then, you are sent into the field to study said "evidence". Gee, makes me wonder how you're gonna interpret it! You could say the same for creationist scientists, but the thing is, to be unbiased you have to consider all possible theories that come up. The creationist scientist already considers evolution, because that's usually his former viewpoint. If he hasn't considered it already, he will find it in abundance in the scientific field. The evolutionary scientist, on the other hand, would throw out the creation viewpoint as "discredited" without even considering it, as he thinks that his peers have already done all of the work for him in discrediting creationism. That is, unless he realizes that alot of evidence is not even being dealt with, I guess because the evolutionary scientist don't think its worth their time. ...Also, just when did the evolutionist camp decide they had enough evidence on their side to not consider ideas brought forth by their creationist colleagues? And what did that evidence consist of? I do wonder.
No, I was taught science. Hypothesis, testable theory, evidence, observation. The creationist view is comprehensively discredited by basic science. The fact you're falling back on this 'bias' crap is proof of that; you can't address the scientific flaws pointed out in a rational manner, so you resort to insinuating bias. If the creationist camp was able to provide any sort of new evidence it'd be considered, but all they do is push out flawed science using flawed principles. So this evidence...well, it's considered, and then proven to be used falsely.
I do believe you should find that the chances of evolution happening aren't just minute, they're so small that the opposite must be true. Your argument above sounds sort of like, "I think, therefore I am, I am, therefore I evolved!".
That is, quite frankly, utter bollocks (as anyone understanding the theory and knowing the research done will tell you). In fact, I'll ask you to drop the sanctimonious 'you should find' rubbish and cite evidence.
So, mankind sinning before they evolved so that death could come into the world and make natural selection work is perfectly, scientifically, sound?
No. It is scientifically irrelevant. It is an unknown and untestable factor. Science does not make up **** - hence science does not even consider this type of stuff.
Moreso, it's rather a meaningless statement. what does it mean? Mankind sinned before mankind existed? Everything else evolved but mankind was plopped into the universe as immortal? I have no idea what your point is.
So, an Intelligent being Designing the universe isn't scientific? No, it's just not scientifically provable. There's evidence, not proof for, both atheistic evolution and ID, again depending on how you interpret them.
Evolution isn't aetheistic, it's just a scientific conclusion drawn from weight of evidence. Just ask the Vatican.
Also, answering any question with an unknown assumption is very unscientific. It's the antithesis of science - to dismiss every question with a preformulated, untestable 'answer' that is so vague and nebulous as to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
abiogenesis=The creation of the first life. evolution=What that life had better have done in an awful big hurry if it hoped to survive past the first generation. How many abiogenesis incidents did we need before we got one that evolved the ability to replicate itself? Your slate is being wiped clean each time the original organism expires. And, we'd better hope that it evolves the ability to replicate itself correctly!
Please read the abiogenesis link I posted previously. This clearly explains that replication was a precursor to life as part of a sequence of 'evolutionary' (stages) events leading to reproducing simple life (for example, Cairns-smiths' inorganic replicator theory). In other words, 'first life' did not have to evolve replication, as replication was 'evolved' prior (for example, Cairns-smith postulated crystal replication which led to the arising of DNA type replicators as 'tools', etc).
(trying to clearly delinate evolution in this context from the biological theory explaining complexity once life arose)
*sigh*
theory 5:
You forgot about the 'plausible' part, evidently.
The proof that ID is not a scientific theory can be found in the Dover (IIRC) School Trial where the pro-creationist witnesses were forced to concede that for ID to be called a theory required a redefinition of the word 'theory' to be the same as 'hypothesis'.
Perhaps a more appropriate definition for you to select is 6b; "b : an unproved assumption", which of course does not qualify as a theory in the scientific sense of the word.
Not likely, given the fact that evolution is taught in 100% of public high schools and state universities. Hey, if you're lucky you might hear about ID!
We call that 'religious education'. Same as how 'the world is flat' comes under history rather than geology.
No, evolution does not "design" us to fit together in harmony; it only favors those that reproduce the most efficiently and manage to survive the best. That could favor working together in harmony until you started running out of resources. And if you did, you'd have to evolve into a predator awfully fast, before you starved.
You do know what natural selection involves, don't you? Natural selection results in the evolution of organisms that exist within an equilibrium within their environment; it's pretty obvious that anything exceeding an equilibrium causes domination and eventually extinction of the food source (for example) and thus extinction of the animal.
Noting that evolution - selection - never stops, of course,so animals are continuously trying to outcompete each other to stay alive; sometimes called the 'Red Queen' effect where animals (well, not just animals - plants also) are evolving in order to preserve their position in light of other (predator or prey) evolution.
I suspect you're not grasping the concept of 'harmony' in this context. Let me rephrase it as simply as I can; evolution favours a stable equilibrium between environment (including competitors) and the evolving organism - i.e. 'harmony'. We may choose to interpret this as the environment being designed for the animals, but in actuality it's the converse. It just so happens that the converse requires a lot more complex thinking to properly understand......
Diverging, as in separating out from a common source, vs converging, or merging to a common destination. Ok, I must have missed it. Who said that we were evolving to a common destination?
The implication of lizards becoming birds is convergence; what birds evolved from were not modern lizards, which is an important distinction. When you get people saying 'evolution means order x must be able to turn into order y' or soforth, it's a massive error.
Anyways... I was kind of hoping to get back to some of the stuff I hadn't answered previously. Oh, well, maybe next time.
Meanwhile, have a look at these:
Evolutionism: The New Intolerance
Scientific Intolerance
I have articles that have more to do with the thread topic, but I have to go through them. Meanwhile, have a look.
PS The address given in those articles is outdated. The e-mail still works, though.
Science is supposed to be intolerant of falsehood. (We don't teach x=5 for x-1=2 in maths, why do the same for biology?)
-
Since atheism is a religion
Since when?
Since it requires faith 2b
{snipped dictionary definition}
Atheism does not require faith, because atheism is non-belief a God or Gods. Since there is no evidence of God/Gods the belief that there are such things must be taken on faith. Therefore to simply disbelieve a deity cannot be based on faith.
Your dictionary defintions for these words are misleading. Dictionaries will typically give all possible definitions and usages of the word. So faith also comes under "trust" or "confidence". And as seen by the defintion you give for religion below, can be defined on some level as "a personal set...of religious attitudes, beliefs".
The problem with these definitions is that while they are "correct", in that the words can be used and understood in this context, they ultimately render the words meaningless if you try and use these defintions the way you are doing here. According to you everything is a religion, and everyone has faith in every single belief they hold. For the word faith and religion to have any meaning you have to be more specific, and dictionaries do make the distinction when taken as a whole.
Example:
"The word faith has various uses; its central meaning is similar to "belief", "trust" or "confidence", but unlike these terms, "faith" tends to imply a transpersonal rather than interpersonal relationship – with God or a higher power. The object of faith can be a person (or even an inanimate object or state of affairs) or a proposition (or body of propositions, such as a religious credo). In each case, however, faith is in an aspect of the object and cannot be logically proven or objectively known. Faith can mean believing unconditionally. It can also be defined as accepting as true something that one has been told by someone who is believed to be trustworthy" -Wikipedia - "faith"
Faith "in each case" is meaningfully defined as belief in something or someone when it "cannot be logically proven or objectively known"
If you do not make these distinctions then there is no difference between a belief based on evidence or reason to one based on nothing but the person wishing it to be true. So therefore we have to define the words this way or rendering the words meaningless.
Atheism is not a faith, its absence of belief in a deity. It is not a religion as it meets none of the criteria to be considered as one. There are no churches, no creed, no beliefs or affirmations that are required to be called a atheist. It is clearly not materialistic necessarily, because that would not explain Taoist and Buddist atheistic religions. You can have faith if you are an atheist, and you can have a religious belief in an atheistic worldview. But atheism has only one meaning, which is that the person disbelieves in the existence of a God or Gods. That itself does not require faith or religion.
Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
See this is what I mean about dictionaries giving all possible definitions of words. Atheism certainly isnt wickedness, nor could you ever define that in any meaningfull way, but its in the dictionary as a definition because that has been used as its meaning in the past.
Note 2a: "a disbelief in the existence of deity" - that is the correct meaningfull definition. "b : the doctrine that there is no deity" could refer to an incomplete description of Taoist beliefs.
You cant and are not meant to mash all definitions up and/or pick whatever one you happen to like and argue that is what the word means. One word can have serveral meanings, but some meanings are so different pretty much only relationship to the other is that they are spelt the same.
One more thing, can you stop referring to the theory of Evolution as 'evolutionism' as if it is some sort of sinister, rival religion?
Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
First of all you do NOT get accurate scientific terms from dictionaries. Secondly, as I have explained above dictionaries gives many definitions of words even, "archaic" definitions. Darwin didnt invent the word evolution, it had a meaning before him. But Darwins theory was much more specific that simply "change".
As you can see only definition 4a is addressing the biological definition on evolution. 1,2 5 and 6 are irrelevant and have NOTHING to do with the biological definition of evolution. Its like I said earlier, some words can mean different things in different contexts practically only thing relating to each other being the spelling. And just to point out, 4a isnt exactly an incorrect definition of Evolution but its also not good either, it certianly isnt in any way complete. Best not to learn about science through dictionaries.
Main Entry: ism
Pronunciation: 'i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief <we all have got to come to grips with our isms -- Jocelyn Elders>
What are you claiming here? That because science has "theories" that it relates to definition 1 of "ism"?! That really is stretching things way past the point of commen sence. Thats beating commen sence to death and building a fire to dance around its body.
Firstly a theory, as you have already been told has a colloquial definition and a scientific definition. These are compeltely different things. Secondly in no way does a scientific theory fit this definition in any other way other than some reference to "theory" which most certianly is NOT refering to a scientific theory nor could you defend that assertion if you tried.
Still got problems with my using the term [evolution 4b ism 1] (or 2 ;7 ... jk :lol: )?
I wish you would stop with all the "lol"s and "jks" and smiley faces after making some stupid comment like this. Its hard to take you seriously when you act like some arrogant little child.
Y'know, screw making a really long answer outlining what I mean. Show me a scientist that has conducted credible, peer-reviewed studies on the subject of Young-Earth Creationism. Then I will conceed that there are indeed scientists out there who not only believe YEC [who cares whether they do or not?], but can be cited as an authority on it.
...peer-reviewed by who? Who are these mystical peers, and what did they do to become members of the "peer group" without whose approval all research is worthless? I'm afraid that the Wright brothers ran afoul of the said group, as well as many others. But anyways, how can you tell if a scientist's work is peer-reviewed? He gets articles printed about him? I mean, I'm sure there are different peer groups around. Which one did you have in mind? I think you mean that the scientist needs to have his work published in a scientific journal, and critiqued by other scientists in his field. But if the bliddy journal won't publish it, then what? (I mean, the scientist is attaching his name to his work and asking for comment... what could be the problem?)
You clearly dont know anything about Peer Review. You think after your paper gets reviewed the critique stops? Thats just the start. If you get a paper published anyone can rip apart your research, and if you're wrong or made some massive error thats going to be very embarrassing for you and depending on how bad your mistake can really damage your reputation.
Why dont you take some time to read up on peer review instead of ignorently speculating on something you dont understand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Creationists dont submit to peer review, and if they did and were unfairly treated all they would to do was post their attempts on some website complete with the reviewers comments. But you never see anything like this but they will still claim theres some massive world wide conspiracy by atheistic-Christian scientists to keep Creationism out of mainstream science and public schools
Did you mean this (http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html) group of peers & their publlications (http://www.creationresearch.org/matters.html)? :drevil: Obviously not, or you wouldn't have a problem. Exactly which group of peers are you talking about here?
I had a look at that website and that is not real peer review in any way. For a start the society was founded by Henry Morris. Henry Morris also founded ICR, and ICR like most professional Creationist societies (like AIG) have to sign a statement of faith, a doctrinal obligation never to change their minds or accept any evidence that might conflict with their interpretation of Genesis. That is not how real science operates.
As previously stated, the universe is evidence of a creator, unless it formed itself, or perhaps was formed by beings from an alternate universe that formed itself ...
Challenge: come up with a theory besides A) "it was created" (by whatever means) or B) "it just happened" or "it just happened, and then it was created", which is the combination of A + B. :p You can't, because there aren't any.
You say "unless it formed itself", but this different to "it just happened". "It just happened" is wrong, and I dont know anyone that has ever said that and it certianly isnt a scientific observation. And "it just formed itself" is just classic Creationist misdirection, such as when they argue that the eye formed itself by accident and thats how silly evolution is. So your challenge is a false dichotomy, and the reality makes it irrelevant. If we dont know how the universe was formed, thats not the same as saying "it just happened" as that doesnt explain anything. No self respecting scientist would ever say "it just happened" or that i"t just formed itself" and an answer.
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
[snipped some definitions]
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Science would have no problem with God creating the universe, but it would not be provable, ie, fact 3:
Oh brother, you are seriously abusing the dictionary... :rolleyes:
See earlier where I talk about how words can have different meanings. I already talked about it but in science a theory does not mean speculation or any other colloquial definition of the word. No Creationism is not science, and neither is the belief in God. Science cannot say that God did anything or that there is a God at all, becasue God is not objectively verifiable in any way whatsoever.
The problem is, the evidence can be used to fit evolution or creation, depending on how you interpret it. It just depends on who is interpreting the evidence correctly.
Does interpreting the evidence corrrectly mean having faith based obligations never to question your preconceived beliefs?
You've got to realize that as I've said, there's "proof" on both sides.
For the word "proof" to be meaningfull it either means 1. Evidence or 2. Evidence that proves absolutely. None of these accuratly describe what you are talking about.
BTW picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion... hmm. You spend 10+ years of your life learning to become a scientist. You are taught by evolutionary scientists, as you cannot even be an evolutionary scientist and point out flaws in the evolutionary theory, and expect to keep your job. So you become an evolutionist. Then, you are sent into the field to study said "evidence". Gee, makes me wonder how you're gonna interpret it! You could say the same for creationist scientists, but the thing is, to be unbiased you have to consider all possible theories that come up. The creationist scientist already considers evolution, because that's usually his former viewpoint. If he hasn't considered it already, he will find it in abundance in the scientific field. The evolutionary scientist, on the other hand, would throw out the creation viewpoint as "discredited" without even considering it, as he thinks that his peers have already done all of the work for him in discrediting creationism. That is, unless he realizes that alot of evidence is not even being dealt with, I guess because the evolutionary scientist don't think its worth their time.
Thats right its a big conspiracy. :rolleyes: You make it sound like the evidence is so open to interpretation that you can validly look at it and come to two completely different contradictory scientific view points.
...Also, just when did the evolutionist camp decide they had enough evidence on their side to not consider ideas brought forth by their creationist colleagues?
Creationism doesnt do science so theres nothing to consider, and is full of men that spread outright lies and deliberate frauds and hoaxes. Mainstream science will consider scientific ideas, but Creationists dont even try to publish to scientific journals.
The Bible doesnt say HOW god created, and it says that a day is a thosuand years.
Exodus 20:11 2 Peter 3:8-9 is talking about a day being a thousand years with the Lord, not in a chronological sense. ie, one of two explanations (or both): Time doesn't bother God. (Which is likely, given context in verse 9) or If you are with God, time will not bother you. .
The point is that since "yom" can mean any length of time, it is possible that the days in genesis were meant to be far longer periods of time than YECs claim. If you are going to be in any way intellectually honest you must interprete the Bible based on scientific data, otherwise its just wrong. But literalists dont want ANY of it to be considered myth or legend or metaphor, it must all be literally true or all of its wrong. God forbid they realise fallible humans wrote the Bible not God. But thats what stubbon fundamentalist faith gets you. Somone once said dont expect to reason someone out of a belief they didnt reason themselves into.
Why does your Bible have to be 100% literal and 100% non-myth and non-legend to be true? Humans wrote the Bible, I know its hard for some fundamentalists to accept, but its true Im sorry.
2 Peter 1:20-21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:20-21;&version=49;)
OK, if the Bible is written by fallible man, then yes, none of it really matters, it's the thought that counts, you can pick and choose.
A man can claim anything they want. You believe it, but for no other reason other than it was written in the Bible. You have no way of knowing god had anything to do with the Bible at all. But if it has any truth to it at all its still going to be flawed, and it was evidently written by men, so whats more the more likely scenario? If the Bible is basically true its still totally unreasonable to assume it is 100% divine and without any error. Its a faith that causes you to thow out any evidence that suggests the Bible contains error, worshipping the Bible not God, which is called bibliolatry. For if god created the rocks, he didnt write the Bible. If God created the natural laws, he didnt write the Bible.
Scientific analysis is the only objective way we can know anything, you want to replace that with unwielding absolute faith *snip*
Nah. Just don't exclude evidence based on your own prejudice as to how the world began and how we were formed. Once someone sees the evidence (for both sides), they might decide to learn more and study the Bible or something. You cannot say that creationism is unscientific just because it's not accepted by evolutionary peers.
Im not. Im saying its unscientific because it fails all the criteria to be considered a science.
I also said scientific analysis is the only objective way we can know anything, you say Im wrong and that actually Creationism is science. So what do you mean? That there is some other method we can use to more accurately and verifiable gain knowledge?
Can those peers disprove the evidence? Ignoring is not disproving.
You are actually saying theres no mainstream scientific responce to Creationist claims? :wtf:
I wonder how many people would watch a televised debate with credible scientist from both sides. I think alot of people would, as long as the debaters didn't fall for hiding their arguments behind scientific lingo. They would have to either explain what they were saying or have someone do it for them.
Too bad the Dover ID trial wasnt televised. Its a good thing you can still read the court transcripts however and see ID being so wonderfully demolished and the Discovery Institute discredited.
First of all you dont hear of many atheists that go killing raping and pillaging. I dont know why fundamentalists seem to be so oblivious to that fact when they sit down and type such nonsence.
Interesting. I know that some Christians commit criminal acts, too, but do what do you really think the majority of "killers, rapists and thieves" are? Nothing against the atheists, but their viewpoint does relieve them from accountability after they die, so if they can get away from the authorities down here, then why not? Imagine this scenario: It is dusk, and you are taking a shortcut through a back alley in New York City when your car dies. It won't start, and you forgot your cell phone. You get out of the car and head towards the nearest busy street you can hear, which is still out of sight. You hear a door opening, and look behind you to see three large males walking rapidly towards you, talking in undertones amongst themselves. Would you be more comfortable to learn that[/color] A) They were Atheists. B) They were Muslims. C) They were Buddhists. D) They were Christians.
Buddists probably, although there are no atheist hate groups that I know about. I dont have a link but I read statistics once which showed most people in American jails were Christian. But we damn sure know there are violent Muslims, and there are many Christian hate groups and violent gangs such as Christian Identity the racist terrorist cult and the Ku Klux Klan, and theres even a similar racist cult for african americans although I forget the name right now (I think its called The New Black Panther Party). So why Buddists and not atheists? Because I am hard pressed to find any Buddist that commits these kinds of crimes, but atheists can have all kinds of beliefs aside from disbelieving in God. Being an atheist does not define your character in any other way, unlike Buddism. So who am I least likely to be scared of? Buddists.
And Im assuming for the sake of this that you are talking about specifically materialist atheists, not just "atheism".
Interestingly, Confucious the Chinese atheist talked about loving your neighbour and treating others as you would like to be treated centuries before Jesus.
Really. That's interesting. BTW, what nationality was Jesus?
:confused: Relevance?
Oh, and I do believe he meant to continue loving your neighbor...Leviticus 19:9-18, emphasis on verse 18.
Oh please, first of all Leviticus is from the Old Testament, dont be so disingenuous. Second of all you cant talk about the Old Testament least of all Leviticus as being some holy moral source of enlightenment. And thirdly, what is your point? I was telling that Confusious, the Chinese ATHEIST was preaching to love your neighbour long before Jesus did. And yet you point me to some obscure reference in Leviticus without explanation. I challenge you to find anything at all resembling the bloodshed and hate that can be found in Leviticus and other OT books in Confucianism .
I do not have the sources to prove it, but I sincerely doubt that there is any religion that doesn't have murderers, rapists, or thieves that claim it as their own. I'm sure you would agree.
Im sure there are some Buddists in history that have some have done bad things but these examples are few and far between however. But the religion specifically doesnt have any blood on its hands, the same cant be said for any Biblical religion.
Second, animals still manage to live with each other including insects like bees and ants where thousands of them spend their entire lives in service of one or two queens that will eventually mate.
That works equally well with evolution or creation.
Whats your point? I was telling you this to show you that working together and getting along do make sence with evolution, because you kept saying it didnt make sence.
No there are no absolute morals.
No there are no absolute morals...in my opinion"[/color]
Are you just trying to fill out space? Of course thats what I meant. :rolleyes:
What we have is inbuilt desire to get along with our fellow human. If humans didnt get along we would have probably died out long ago because we couldnt get along.
Tell that to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Bashar Al-Assad. is wrong with them? How does evolution explain them? Most of them didn't do what they did out of a need for survival!
Good job moving the goal posts! First you say humans getting along doesnt make sence with evolution, now you are saying that the fact that humans dont get along doesnt make sence with evolution. Good job. Point is, ape societies mimic what we see in human socities on a smaller scale. They have wars with other groups, dominent male leaders, and sometimes these get challenged by other males and take control themselves. Point is human society does make sence with evolution, and your goal post shifting and attempts at distraction isnt going to change that.
You pretty much answered your own question, although I should clarify; It's because they were wicked wicked people, and it's his chosen people's "inheritance".
Well thats a lofty reason to commit genocide. :rolleyes: I wonder if should have murdered all Germans including women and children after World War 1, destroyed all their livestock and burning their cities to the ground. . .
I think that offering toddlers as live offerings to a god to bring good luck or what the heck ever would qualify you for the "wicked wicked" title.
Firstly the Bible does not give this reason as the definition of "wicked", and secondly even if it had it stretches credulity to suggest that all the groups the Bible-God asks his chosen people to whipe out did this. There is no outside evidence to suggest this. Secondly, not only did they kill every man they also killed all the women, children, unborn children and all the animals but in one story it says that gods chosen people are to kill all the male children, but are allowed to keep the little girls for themselves. And the only reason you give for this is that "they were wicked". And you think this is convincing to people? We dont even treat people that way in our wars today no matter what they did. Its even fround upon to kill prisoners of war. Yet apologists still claim the Bible is the ultimate source if morality, and that god is just. Nonsence; God is a vengeful, jealous God that cant think of any other way to deal with his broken creation but to kill, rape and pillage and destroy.
That's a relational, not original (origin, or source) sense. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - the Son is Son in relation to the Father, and the Trinity is Three persons in One. The Son "took on flesh" (put on a physical body) and came down to Terra to save us from our sins.
Im aware you believe that that, which is why in the very next sentence I said "but Christians tell us it was just him [God] in in human form". And you knew I said that because you even quoted me.
You fail to realize the full import of sin. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ." We are eternal beings, we have a soul. When we die, we do not cease to exist. God is holy and must punish sin. Therefore, if He carried out His law in regards to us, we would be doomed for all of eternity. God provided a way out of this through His Son (second person of Trinity) Jesus, who He raised from the dead the third day after He was killed.
You do not explain why bloodshed, pain and torture is the only way God can forgive sin. Isnt it accurate to describe your god as bloodthirsty?
Everyone is a sinner, by birth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2051:5;&version=31;)
Glad you posted this. It illustrates how ridiculous the whole idea is. If you are sinfull at birth, then sin is meaningless. If it means even when you have no concept of right and wrong yet, or any mental capactity for reason or anything but the most basic functions (sleep, food, etc) then you are still a sinner worthy of death. See if thats what sin means, then to not sin is impossible and therefore to punish us for not being perfect is immoral. Its like punishing someone beucase they cannot breath under water, or not being able to fly. Such things would be ludicrous, becuase the human body is not capable of such things. Same thing with sin. You cant punish someone for something if they never had the capacity to be anything else. All humans need to urinate and produce feces and and all the dirtyness that comes with that, but you cannot punish someone for doing that and the fact that they were born that way.
Anyways, all of these points are moot and void if we're talking about a book made by man, based on a false story of how Terra came into being. As I've said before, some attempts have been made to rationalize that God used evolution, but I don't see how that could reconcile with Romans 5:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=5&verse=12&version=31&context=verse).
Only if you presume the Bible has to be 100% without error, inerrant.
Nonsence. Either put up or shut up about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics being some kind of problem for evolution, its been addressed countless times on this thread but you keep using it as an argument.
I do believe that law basically means that energy naturally cascades from more available to less available forms, correct?
Why dont you just get to the point and set out your claim for why Evolution violates the 2nd law, even AIG say its a bad argument. But go ahead if you want to, and then while you're at it you can explain why a air conditioning system doesnt violate the 2nd law in the same way. Why do we see anything gong from simple to more complex if it is impossible? Maybe this is an argument Ive never heard of, but I doubt it.
You're using Pascals Wager? Seriously?
No. You think I went through all of this just to explain something as simple as Pascal's Wager?!? ::)
Yes I do, but if it wasnt why dont you go back and explain what your point was? Looked and sounded exactly like Pascal's Wager to me.
But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator.
No, some religions do not have a god at all.
*smacks self*
That's right, I forgot about atheism!! :lol:
Not atheism as I explained above. I was refering to beliefs like Taoism.
I just messed up and made a new paragraph where I shouldn't have. I was talking the three big monotheistic religions (Christian, Jewish, Muslim). As a broader statement, I don't think there's any religion except atheism that doesn't have a Higher Being involved (essentially, ID).
Whats really amusing is at the start of this post you give a really broad definition of religion and faith so you could include atheism in it. But now you are saying that Zen, Confucianism and Taoism and Buddism arent religions.
Assuming there is one, it cant be tested by science and faith isnt going to allow you to "know" anything at all.
Faith is believing in something when you have no evidence for, or when there is evidence to the contrary. Its unverifiable gut feelings that unfortunatly for you people from all religions feel and feel strongly about for their particular beliefs, so this is no way to be able to test if your beliefs are accurate.
Wrong. I believe you're talking Fideism, not faith.
No Im talking about faith. All definitions of faith Ive seen define faith as complete confidence in a belief when there is no objective or logical evidence. If we look at your definition below we can see it says exactly that, including "complete trust" and "on faith: without question". Wikipedia says faith "in each case" is belief in something that "cannot be logically proven or objectively known".
So what happens when you have complete trust in your belief without question even though it cannot be logically proven or objectively known? Thats faith. And thats why we have professional Creationist organisations having sworn "statements of faith", doctrinal obligations to never let any of the evidence change their minds. They know what faith is, and it has nothing to do with evidence.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
I did, apparently you didnt.
I do believe you should find that the chances of evolution happening aren't just minute, they're so small that the opposite must be true. Your argument above sounds sort of like, "I think, therefore I am, I am, therefore I evolved!".
1. This is nothing but your personal incredulity. 2. Abiogenesis isnt evolution. 3. Creationists wild and massive figures of probabilities on abiogenesis occuring are based in part on their false impression that life just spontaneously sprung out of nothing.
Sure, but science cant comment on such religious ideas.
So, mankind sinning before they evolved so that death could come into the world and make natural selection work is perfectly, scientifically, sound?
What part of "science cant comment on such religious ideas" dont you understand?
Of course they will, so long as its science. Intelligent Design isnt science.
You'd say that theology isn't, either, but look at science 2a (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science). It's a scientific theory.
Nonsence. Does Theology follow the scientific method? No. Theology is not science. Does ID meet any criteria to be a scientific theory? No. Behe in the Dover trial said his definiton of science was so broad it it would also include astrology.
Science cant test the supernatural, but science will gladly give ID a chance if it ever came up with something that was testable and objective.
...Such as the fact that coding doesn't happen? Of course, you couldn't test that, as it'd take a few million years.
What are you talking about? You dont base a scientific theory on evidence you think might exist in a million years.
So, an Intelligent being Designing the universe isn't scientific? No, it's just not scientifically provable. There's evidence, not proof for, both atheistic evolution and ID, again depending on how you interpret them.
An Intelligent being Designing the universe isnt even hypothetically verifiable, this makes it not science. Its a religious concept that science has no way to test for. And no scientific theory is "proved", not even Gravity.
You mention "atheistic evolution", but is god not involved in gravity? Is god not involved with bacteria and microbes which the germ theory addresses? Adding atheistic to "evolution" is meaningless. Everything in science is "atheistic" becuase theres no way to tell if a supernatural entity is involved in the process' at all. When hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water is this an atheistic theory too? How about when science proposes naturalistic mechanisms for the formation of snowflakes and ice crystals, is that an atheistic theory? I suppose its just the atheistic bias of the anti-god scientific establishment that keep from including God in these theories.
Ed
-
Diverging, as in separating out from a common source, vs converging, or merging to a common destination. Ok, I must have missed it. Who said that we were evolving to a common destination?
The implication of lizards becoming birds is convergence; what birds evolved from were not modern lizards, which is an important distinction.
Sorry for being nitpicky, but birds didnt evolve from lizards at all.
-
Nope. They evolved from terrible lizards ;)
-
Nope. They evolved from terrible lizards ;)
Not even terrible ones. :p
-
If I mention that the greek words for terrible and lizard are deinos and saura, perhaps you would agree?
-
Right. All these qutes are getting annoying. So let's just lay it out.
You say atheism is a religion because it requires faith. It doesn't. Faith, by your own definition, requires beleif in something that has no proof. But that's fundamentally what Atheism isn't. It's defined by the absence of belief. That is what creationism is, unless you intend to produce this so called "proof" of yours.
Use of the word "Evolutionism". You've played some word games which kind of justify it in a roundabout way, but defies modern convention. Convention says that there's no such thing as a modern "evolutionist" - you use evolutionism and evolutionists to define people back in the nenteenth century, when there was still controversy, but these days there are only "biologists", "geologists", "physicists", "geneticists", "biochemists", "immunologists", "anatomists" and "taxonomists" and the other group - "people who live in fantasy land" (i.e. creationists, saltationists, lamarckists, flat earthists etc. etc.)
Peer Review - Mefustae got it in one.
The Anti-Creationist attitude of Evolutionists and the Scientific Community - You're absolutely right. There's a massive bias among educated people towards evolution. It's called the weight of evidence. That does not mean to say, however, that people ignore criticisms of it. I don't think anyone would have any problems with the assertion that Albert Einstein is the most famous scientist of the twentieth century, maybe in history. Why? Because he took Newtonian Mechanics and provided an alternative theory that could be proven. In essence, he disproved it. Any modern day scientist who disproved neo-Darwinian evolution would become just as famous, probably moreso. He'd get multimillion dollar book deals and lecture tours. He'd get as much grant money as he could ever need to pursue any avenue he wanted to. He'd be able to write his own admission onto the academic staff of any institute in the world. Look at what happened to the Punctuated Equillibrium people when they advocated their position (which was really nothing more than a mere adjustment of darwinism)Scientists are always looking into evolution, trying to disprove it, or even find situations it might not apply because it would mean that all their professional dreams would come true. And despite ther incentives, and the decades of attempts, nobody can disprove it. Tell you anything?
Your "Challenge", which I will quote for clarity:
come up with a theory besides A) "it was created" (by whatever means) or B) "it just happened" or "it just happened, and then it was created", which is the combination of A + B. :p You can't, because there aren't any.
That's because you're playing wordgames. If you want to simplify all the modern theories of the creation of the universe, planets and life into "it just happened", be my guest, but that's not what this thread is about and you damn well know it.
Next point, that creaionism constitutes a scientific theory. Bogus by your own definitions:
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
Which creationists clearly don't have, as evidenced by this entire thread where we've been correcting you and your bretheren about practically every scientific principle you've tried to use to support creationism.
Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Which creationists don't follow, since you're swtaring with the preconception that everything was created. And don't say that "evolutionists" start with the assumption that everything evolved, because that's simply not true. Evolution is tested every time a cladistic tree is drawn up.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
Which creationism is not, since it's not scientifically acceptable, since it requires a supernatural being, which violates the precepts of science. And yes, some of the other definitions of "theory" fit, but again, convention states that when you have a scientific discussion, theory's are things that are well tested and supported by a vast body of evidence. Creationism is an untested hypothesis.
Next we have the idea that the evidence provided by the Earth can be attributed to either Creation or Evolution. This is not true, unless you simply look at all the evidence that points to common descent and gradual evolution and say "God did it that way". And the evidence for the age of the Earth can not be attributed to creationism at all, particularly not young earth creationism, unless, that is, you don't believe in the Andromeda galaxy (at 2.5 million light years away, the light from that galaxy should reach a 6000 year old earth in around... 2.5million years). So, I'll reissue the challenge that's been given over and over again. Provide some evidence for creationism. Don't just say "There's evidence on both sides and expect us to waste our time wading through the mountains of creationist websites which crap on about the second law of thermodynamics and the decay rate of Helium. Do what we've been courteous enough to do for you and find us some good evidence.
Next, the idea that we should all convert to Christianity "just in case". **** that. Next.
OK, what's next. Hmm... a general rant about "evolutionists" ignoring the evidence for creationism. Nope. Nobody does that. No scientist worth his salt would ignore any relevant evidence in his experiments. Creationism is never considered by real scientists because there's absolutely zero evidence for it.
I like this part of the post though:
You could have given me a link. I like being lazy.
I could make a comment here about creationism being the absolute laziest way to look at the world since you never have to think about how everything got to be so well adapted, and how it's much easier to just say "God did it". But I wont, because then you'll say that my refusal to trawl through the masses of creationist pseudoscience I mentioned above represents laziuness on my part.
Next, an unsupported statement that the majority of anti-social, dangerous people in the world are Atheists. I call bull****. Get some stats, and then maybe I'll beleive you.
Next, we have some bible quotes that are utterly irrelevant to any discussion on evolution. I'm ignoring them.
Next, oh what a surprise, another example of a creationist who doesn't understand the second law of thermodynamics
I do believe that law basically means that energy naturally cascades from more available to less available forms, correct?
The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
For what I wish could be the last time, the Earth is not an isolated system. It is constantly receiveing both matter (in the form of micrometeorites and space dust perpetually raining down) and energy (in the form of the huge amounts of consmic and solar radiation we're being bombarded with). So please, just stop bringing up the second law. Please.
Next the same old crap about the probability of evolution. These figures are made based on the assumption that evolution is a single step process - that things randomly pop into existence fully formed. The whole thrust of evolutionary theory is that cumulaticve selection decreases this probability into events that can, and indeed have happened. Admittedly, abiogenesis requires some leaps of probability, but they're nowhere near as immense as your creationist textbooks would have you believe, and keep in mind that even if it happened only once among the billions of stars in the millions of galaxies in the universe, then inevitably, it happened to us, otherwise we'd not be here wondering about it.
I really wish I could convince you to go down to your library and borrow a copy of The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins has a whole chapter devoted to explaining the proibability of evolution. But of course, you're not going to do that, despite your own rants about "evolutionists" refusing to look at evidence for the other side.
Next, some copied promo bull**** aboput the Discovery Institute which is just as irrelevant as the bible stuff. Ignoring.
Now we have a misunderstanding of abiogenesis. The origin of the first replicating molecule defines abiogenesis, so its pointless to consider the molecules that didn't evolve replication right, because that's not abiogenesis at all. That's.... well, I dunno. Organic chem I suppose.
Poor maths doesn't prove anything.
Neither does poor spelling x2.
This annoys the hell out of me. If you've got nothing better to do than pick away at his spelling, then concede the debate and **** off. And take your American arrogance with you - Maths is spelt correctly in the majority of the English speaking world you little twat.
Now, you start criticizing the incompleteness of the fossil record and claim that there are no trransitional fossils. If you honestly beleive this, you're an idiot. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The reson everything we find is fully formed is because any animal that suddenly sprouted a part from another organism would almost certainly die and not leave enough descendants to fossilize. Every animal we find is a transitional form, with the possible exception of things like sharks and crocodiles which haven't evolved much. Look at the very first post in this thread, or the list of transitional forms I already posted. ****ing hell, how many times do we have to tell you these things?
Next, you whinge about creationism not getting taught in schools. Well, that's because there's no evidence for it and thus no point to teaching it.
Now, you make a statement that's curious even by creationist standards:
No, evolution does not "design" us to fit together in harmony; it only favors those that reproduce the most efficiently and manage to survive the best. That could favor working together in harmony until you started running out of resources. And if you did, you'd have to evolve into a predator awfully fast, before you starved.
I hope, for the sake of humanity's overall intelligence, that you're deliberately ignoring the simple logic here that makes that wrong and you're not truly that stupid. Every animal in nature is constantly running out of resources. That's why they evolve in competition. Consider the trees in the rainforest. Why do you think they're so tall? Because as soon as one tree get's slightly taller, it shades out the trees around it and they reproduce less often and less efficiently. So all the trees in the forest have to get taller. Evolution forces things to live in harmony together by keeping everything competing with everything else as fast as they can. If you want an example that doesn't ivolve evolution, think about a marathon. It'd be far more efficient for all the runners to collectively talk amongst themselves and agree to walk the first 42 kms and then just sprint the last 200m, but as soon as one person decides to break the deal and run the whole way, they all have to run the whole way or they're guaranteed to lose.
Nature is harsh and brutal and nasty. What cooperation there is exists solely because it provides reproductive benefit to each and every individual organism participating in the cooperation. Provide me with one example of natural cooperation that can't be explained through evolution and I will give up support for evolution.
Now you're having a whinge about the problems for evolving birds from dinosaurs. Your problems stem, once again, from a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Unfortunately, you seem to have forgotten (or more likely, ignored) the concept of exaptation I tried to teach you about when we were discussing lungs. Dromaeosaurs evolved hollow bones to decrese weight and increase running speed. They evolved feathers probably as thermoregulatory devices which may have been used in courtship (and thus sexual selection would have promoted their growth). They evolved large, efficient lungs and almost certainly ectothermy to once again assist in fast running. They already had primitive furculas. They already had powerful legs adapted to jumping and taking the shocks of landing from these jumps. In fact, The only things that would need to evolve together are large flight feathers and elongated arms, which would naturally tend to evolve together as soon as having long legs and large enough feathers began allowing the animal to prolong leaps into the air i.e. as soon as they became advantageous.
Once again, I feel I should reiterate my suggestion that yoiu read The Blind Watchmaker[. If you want something shorter and more introductory, try River out of Eden. I know you'll read neither of these books, but I'd feel wrong not to suggest it. And seriously, stop dicking about and correcting peoples spelling. It makes you look like an even bigger idiot than arguing for creationism does.
-
If I mention that the greek words for terrible and lizard are deinos and saura, perhaps you would agree?
Still no. Lots of fundamental reasons why Dinos aren't lizards - posture, hip structure, skull structure etc. etc.
-
If I mention that the greek words for terrible and lizard are deinos and saura, perhaps you would agree?
I would agree thats what Richard Owen, the scientist, named them. He did so because he didn't know the difference yet.
-
You say atheism is a religion because it requires faith. It doesn't. Faith, by your own definition, requires beleif in something that has no proof. But that's fundamentally what Atheism isn't. It's defined by the absence of belief. That is what creationism is, unless you intend to produce this so called "proof" of yours.
I feel the need to be an arse here and point out this is not true. Atheism does in some measure require faith, for deities are the ultimate unproveables. To believe there is no God has as little proof as to believe there is a God; there is no proof either way. An atheist takes the fact there is no god(s) on faith, and must.
Atheism is not the denial of belief or faith; to say an atheist is faithless is a base canard. Lots of atheists have faith. But not faith in a religion. Atheism still cannot be a religion for many reasons. It is not organized. It has no commonality of teachings, no doctrine, no authorities. Most of all, it has no followers. You do not follow atheism, you cannot. It is as impossible as anything can be. There is nothing there to follow, as already itirated.
However, since I'm here on the logical front, I must also point out that, while not only is your argument deeply flawed, jr2, it is in and of itself an informal fallacy. Red herring.
-
it takes faith to beleive in something you cannot see, it takes skeptisism to deny it.
would you say that you had faith that there was no flying spagetti monster, that you had faith in the non-exsistance of atlantis. if there is no evidence for something it isn't faith not to beleive in it, weather or not there is evidence against it.
-
Skepticism is faith too. Faith that lack of proof is proof of lack. Faith, then, that logic is wrong, that the distilled essence of two millenia and more of human philosophy is in fact sophistry. So you see, skepticism is faith, a faith fully the equal of belief in creationism. Less likely to be totally wrong, perhaps, but equally deluded, equally unwilling to admit lack of knowledge and instead seeking comfort in denial.
You are after all believing in something you cannot see, a logical chain from your mind, and a flawed one.
-
yeas, thats all nice epistemological BS, but realy not beleiveing insomething you have no reason to beleive in is not faith. there are infinate posibilities of reality, but that doesn't change the fact that I have to get up in three and a half hours to go to work. you have faith that you are sitting in front of a computer right now? you have faith that you are not in fact the leader of a glorius resistance movement and the room you are sitting in now and the memories of your life is mearly the side effects of a brain scanning machine that is slowly extracting the secret location of your reble base for lord Xenu?
sure I supose on some foolish and unnessisary phylisophical level you have what could be described as 'faith' in every aspect of your mind. but I don't think that matters to the socal context of religion vs atheism, I simply do not have faith in certan beleifes, it is not that I have faith that they are wrong, but more that I have not seen any reason inparticular to agree with them at this time, I mostly ignore them, if I am not active in a beleife I don't see how you can say that I have anything in them, especaly something as involved as faith.
like I said this line of reasoning is nothing more than an epistemological smoke screen, quit it.
-
I feel the need to be an arse here and point out this is not true. Atheism does in some measure require faith, for deities are the ultimate unproveables.
Some of us are agnostics, so the original point is moot anyway.
-
Gravity can be distilled down to faith, but it doesn't make that distillation true. Likewise, 'black is not white' is also faith. Every statement can be defined as faith if we seek to.
.
-
Pastafarianism being a true example of this.... :nod:
-
yeas, thats all nice epistemological BS, but realy not beleiveing insomething you have no reason to beleive in is not faith.
Nice, insult in the first line. We're not getting started on the right foot here. More to the point I don't deal in epistimlogical arguments; I didn't take that class. This is basic Intro to Logic stuff. Now, on to the full reply.
But that's not the point, is it now? You have no reason to believe it, sure, okay. But simply because you don't have any reason to believe it is not adequate reason to deny its existence. It's easy to find someone and tell them something that's absolutely true, and that they have no reason to believe. That does not make it false. Unless you have some kind of positive reason to disbelieve, then that's very much based on faith. When presented with a situation where there is no evidence either way the only correct answer one can give is "I don't know."
Very pretty and wordy Straw Man clipped. Please do not bother adding these to your arguments in the future.
sure I supose on some foolish and unnessisary phylisophical level you have what could be described as 'faith' in every aspect of your mind. but I don't think that matters to the socal context of religion vs atheism, I simply do not have faith in certan beleifes, it is not that I have faith that they are wrong, but more that I have not seen any reason inparticular to agree with them at this time, I mostly ignore them, if I am not active in a beleife I don't see how you can say that I have anything in them, especaly something as involved as faith.
Not hardly. I think your interpretation is off here. Faith is belief in the abscence of proof. Gravity is a proveable (nice straw man there aldo). You presented a binary choice: belief or non-belief. If you're trying to say "don't know" or "don't care" then you didn't give yourself that option to start with. If you want to add it now, fine, I'll let it go this time, and you're right, that's not faith. But it's hardly atheism either, since it leaves the option of religion open.
like I said this line of reasoning is nothing more than an epistemological smoke screen, quit it.
That's an interesting word choice. If I'm screening something, what is it?
-
Not hardly. I think your interpretation is off here. Faith is belief in the abscence of proof. Gravity is a proveable (nice straw man there aldo). You presented a binary choice: belief or non-belief. If you're trying to say "don't know" or "don't care" then you didn't give yourself that option to start with. If you want to add it now, fine, I'll let it go this time, and you're right, that's not faith. But it's hardly atheism either, since it leaves the option of religion open.
Actually, gravity is proveable only if we believe that our senses provide an accurate representation of reality; in that sense it can be defined as 'faith'.
I don't believe theism / aetheism is a binary choice, either; there's no obligation or necessity to form any opinion on it. But the same basic requirements for aetheism being faith aren't too different from defining physics as faith. Faith is generally defined as 'belief without evidence'; aetheism though can be cited as belief with evidence or - alternatively phrased - the lack of evidence for the universe to require a God or Gods to exist. Aetheism - real, considered aetheism - differs from theism because it does not accept the concept of belief without evidence; whereas theism seeks to insert supernatural explanations for the inexplicable (i.e. disregards the issue of evidence), actual 'proper' aetheism IMO seeks evidence to explain these things.
Gravity being an example to go back to; faith would be simply regarding falling as 'natural', or by the hand of gods will or somesuch, but the aetheistic approach would/should be to understand why falling happens; essentially determining the value of x and y in an equation. Or back onto this topic; one/the religious approach to the diversity of life and the history of extinction and alteration of the natural world is generally to chalk it down to some nebulous concept of 'God', usually trying to warp contradiction (as we've seen here, previously) - essentially belief in the face of evidence. But the aetheistic approach would be to examine and seek evidence for an explanation; it just so happens that there is a non-divine explanation with a big wodge of evidence, which is why evolution (as you know, of course) seems to really piss off the more fundamentalist people in the world, when in reality evolution isn't aetheistic but just a chain of reasoning based on evidence (agnostic, if anything, I guess). Which is going on a bit of a tangent, granted.
Anyways, for aetheism to be faith, there'd need to be evidence of God / Gods, which there isn't (and for such evidence to exist, it would rather negate organized religions' purpose.....)
-
your grasping at the "we can't realy know anything for absolute certan" argument to tell me that to not beleive in something is faith, that's sort of streaching it, just a hair.
and starw man? maybe I just totaly misunderstood your point, but didn't you say that in a situation were there is no evidence for or against it takes faith not to beleive? those situations I described have absolutely no evedence for them, yet are set up to be unfalseable, by your logic you have faith in any absurde scenario I can think up being false, in fact you have faith that every of the infinite bizare concepts I can make up is not real. that IS what you are saying.
and you'r screening your lack of a point, or maybe your faulty reasoning.
-
But simply because you don't have any reason to believe it is not adequate reason to deny its existence.
You've made the fundemental error of assuming that atheism is the denial that God or gods exist. That's actually only one position (defined by some as Strong Atheism).
Atheism also include the viewpoint that the supernatural may or may not exist but that it is currently completely unproven. In the light of the fact that there is no proof proponents of this viewpoint completely ignore the supernatural on the grounds that it is more logical to act on things you do have proof for than for things you don't have proof for. This position is called Weak Atheism and is actually the viewpoint of the majority of atheists.
Whatever you think about strong atheism to claim that all atheism is a belief is quite simply wrong.
-
I feel the need to be an arse here and point out this is not true. Atheism does in some measure require faith, for deities are the ultimate unproveables. To believe there is no God has as little proof as to believe there is a God; there is no proof either way. An atheist takes the fact there is no god(s) on faith, and must.
It would only be a faith if you have complete and absolute confidence in your belief and will never change your mind no matter what evidence comes to light in the future. Any absolute belief you do not question is faith, even if it does happen to be true. If all your beliefs are tentative, there is no faith to be found.
There is no need to have faith there is no-god, or no-supernatural. Theres simply no reason to believe these things. But for me I'd love to believe in the supernatural, I'd love to believe in an afterlife. But wanting to believe in something isnt going to make it true. Therefore I see no reason to believe it until I have reason to. Faith isnt going to help me know anything, its just going to stop me learning anything else.
Skepticism is faith too. Faith that lack of proof is proof of lack
Skepticism is questioning your beliefs. Thats not faith, thats the opposite of faith. Healthy skepticism is a good thing, it keeps you thinking straight.
Creationists sometimes say they are being "skeptical of evolution", but they arent, they are denying it because it conflicts with their faith so they have no choice.
Gravity is a proveable (nice straw man there aldo)
'fraid not. Nothing in science is proven. Newtons law of gravity was corrected by the theory of General Relativity and Special Relativity. At which point have we proven gravity?
Ed
-
Considering that we haven't found the graviton it's a complete lie to say that gravity is proven even now anyway.
-
Considering that we haven't found the graviton...
Well, it's always in the last place you look.
-
Considering that we haven't found the graviton it's a complete lie to say that gravity is proven even now anyway.
One Creationist told me recently she believed the theory of Gravity was proven, and that the test to prove it was to go and drop a ball. :rolleyes:
-
There is no denying that evolution happens to some degree - anyone who has caught a cold twice can attest to that (although such minor variations in antigens are not considered to count as evolution). What matters to some people is whether or not humans evolved (devolved? :)) from apes.
Fish to amphibians? That's nice, but we've seen that before. At what point is any species linked to humans? That is when people will be interested.
Disbelief can be as much faith as belief - in my opinion, atheism falls into this category. Disbelief is not always the same, however, as 'lack of belief'.
A lot of people seem to mistake atheism from agnosticism.
-
There is no denying that evolution happens to some degree - anyone who has caught a cold twice can attest to that (although such minor variations in antigens are not considered to count as evolution).
Only Creationists claim this isnt evolution.
What matters to some people is whether or not humans evolved (devolved? :)) from apes.
I know you were probably joking, but theres no such thing as devolution. And we didnt just evolve from apes, we are still apes now by every objective measure. Its like asking if we evolved from mammals, well, we're still mammals.
At what point is any species linked to humans? That is when people will be interested.
Yet out of all the fossil apes we have found, what do you find missing that is such an impassable gap?
. Disbelief is not always the same, however, as 'lack of belief'. .
I used to say that, I tried to say that just because I dont believe in something doesnt mean I disbelieve it, but then i realised that lacking belief in something still means you dont believe it. The important thing to understand is the difference between tentative beliefs based on evidence and reason, and beliefs you have complete confidence in where evidence and reason are irrelevant. The latter is faith.
-
Here's an interesting book. I'm not really going to contribute anything to this debate because pretty much everything I would have said has been mentioned at one point or another. Anyways, this book is written by a leading genetecist who is also a pretty religios-type, and he says that creationism and evolution are not mutually-exclusive and can both be true. It's an interesting read... I think the point was to calm down super-religious types.
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743286391/104-7801986-6207920?v=glance&n=283155) :yes: :yes:
-
I apologize for oversimplification, and double-spacing (whoops, i just space paragraphs. Sorry, generally I do a series of one-liners). I blame it on the curriculum, my age, and society. (Yes, society can be blamed for a bunch of things, such as using hell as a swear word)
O.K. One, this is getting pretty lame. J w/e is reduced to using the english language to cover his @**. As you should know, claiming that someone's definitions are wrong is just a way of saying either: "I'm not listening, 'cause you're saying it wrong" "I'm too lazy to analyze what you actually meant, so instead, I will show how you said it wrong." Either way, you are just not listening, and hiding in your willful ignorance behind a facade of "I don't get it".
Yes, you can simplify things to: The universe was created. And, The universe arose from nothing. But both do injustice to what they represent. The universe arising from nothing has the same amount of space given as the universe creation, but has a universal agreement base. All who believe the universe arose from nothing believe it arose in about the same way. The dissension in their ranks is minor compared to the many deities who supposedly created the universe, and their methods of doing it.
Second, in NO WAY can you ever use any portion of Judeo-Christian religion as proof for ID/Creationism. See God disappearing in puff of logic. That would a major contradiction for a supposedly omnipotent deity. Said omnipotent one is clearly having difficulties being consistent (sp?), for a long time.
Third, obviously, many of the "theists" who came to this thread, none of them have bothered to research anything, beyond their trusty books in hotels (duh), have come, made arguments that have repeatedly been disproved, made the same argument multiple times, not bothered to read the replies, (or if they did, only to pick apart semantics), made completely illogical statements, and shot themselves in the foot. Take, for example, the argument that if Earth was made by little green men, what were the men made by? And who made the men that created the little green men, and who... Yeah. But the moronic part is, we can use the same argument about any higher being (ie god). Since we can do that, assuming the universe arose through various natural and logical processes makes even more sense.
Fourth: Creationism makes no sense. Duh. In any form, shape, or way. The most the creationists can do is say that evolutionists are: A. Minions of Satan. B. Corrupted by Satan. C. Using words incorrectly. D. Hah! Evolution doesn't work! E. It's much nicer to believe there's a God! F. Uhhh... dunno. Their "substitute" if you can call it that, can be picked apart umpteen different ways by anyone with a piece of string and a brain.
Fifth: Evolution does make sense. While all sorts of methods are used to attempt to show that creationism is right, many of them involve methods that are just biased. While you may think a mathematician is "giving evolution a break", in actuality, we are giving creationists a break. See infinite series at point 3. This sort of thing can easily be pointed out, as can various inconsistencies (sp?) in various religions, and conditioned thinking. Conditioned thinking, in this case, I mean rejecting anything that doesn't agree with what you think, or making up something in an attempt to justify your beliefs. These include saying God is a prankster, that there is a massive conspiracy against creationists, that what a majority of people think must be right, that math can be turned on and off at will, and assorted other things.
Sixth: I read Piers Anthony's "Incarnations of Immortality". While it may not be a good basis for making an opinion on whether God needs a replacement, it does show something interesting about how one would expect an ultimate interpertation of evil to act. That is, ignoring rules at will, and enforcing them when it is useful. Which side's argument does this sound like? I'll give you three guesses. ;7
Seventh: What the evolutionary "micro and macro" evolutions are, is basically two aspects of the same thing, but one is easier to attack. Macroevolution isn't a huge change from a bird to a reptile, it's a series of small changes, that just keep occuring.
While a bird isn't a reptile (yes, I know this comparison derides evolution, sorry), if a bird is in an environment that favours reptiles, the most reptile-like birds are more probably to survive. Then, mutations will occur. The outwardly bad mutations (i.e. dying at birth) won't survive, but the outwardly good mutations, such as (dunno, name something) will increase the probability of that creature surviving, and thus of reproducing, and thus of sending it's genes around. Keep this going for a few billion years, and your "bird" that survives best where it is will be all that's left.
Eigth: Taking a religion literally, then trying to disprove evolution, is shooting yourself in the pinkie. Saying that the religion will be proved right is evolution is wrong proves only one thing. You consider evolution the greatest threat to your religion. That implies it's accurate.
As well, nuking evolution opens the door to many religions waiting to get in.
Ninth, worst, and most damning. Religion shows evolution. Ouch. The religions that lots of people believe, and identify with (i.e. the ones that people like, thus the best (fittest) ones) stay around a long time. The ones that don't, don't. As well, religions change to accomodate pressure (i.e. Pope acnowledges (sp?) evolution). This sounds like a minor form of evolution to me. Even if it has nothing to do with biology, it uses the same logic.
Tenth (I make these up as I go): Uhhh... Let's attack Christianity! No flaming.
K, since christians believe their religion is right, as it came after the jewish religion, since it's a revised religion, why is Islam not better? It contains an extra revision, that of Mohammed, yes? So thus, it must be even better! How about the Druze? They have a third coming! Even better!
The reasoning is, Christianity is obselete. Since the people discarded Semetism, they must discard Christianity next, or they will have an inaccurate religion!
Eleventh: Read. The. Posts. 90% of all your arguments have been disproved. I have no sympathy for those who use improbability as an excuse.
I bet I could find better odds for getting AIDS if you're a virgin, than God existing. (actually, there are. In Canada, only one in 4000...)
Clear logical fallacy. Why, I bet that using the Wikipedia definitions of logical fallacies, I could disprove tons of arguments.
Twelfth: Look, strict interpetation of the bible is incompatible with evolution. Duh. Anyone who disagrees is either too liberal, hasn't read the bible, approves of their religion being changed to fit local pressures, or something.
Thirteenth: Read between the lines. According to my post, religion posing as science is the work of the Devil. Amusingly, I don't believe this, but if you don't, you don't believe in your religion, or you don't believe in that religion. There is a nice pattern to work with, and double standards are another sign (see point 6).
Six Hundred and Sixty Sixth. Posted by a person who survived June 6'th, 2006, the least dangerous doomsday ever. :o
N'th. Dunno.
EDIT: Well, let's see here... Evolution has no path, so deevolution isn't possible, just evolution to suit a niche (i.e. the white house :lol:)
As a agnostic, I have faith in nothing, except that which can be reasonably proven. In this, at least to me, the choice is obvious. Patterns can be proven, logic can be proven, blind belief cannot. I don't blame the people who believe in a deity, I blame those who brainwash them.
I gotta admit, dismissing evolution as a conspiricy seems kinda ironic in that context....
-
This stinks. I come here and read you guys' posts, and then I have to respond with just a little one-liner because I have to do things in my life outside HLP (yes, I'm one of those people that has one). Anyway.
PLEASE stop bringing up the Catholic Church (no offense to Catholics out there); they consider the Pope to be above the Bible, thereby nullifying anything in it that the fallible man decides he doesn't like.
And BTW, more on speaking outside of your fields...
Darwin - theology
Lyell - lawyer (and we all know how much those guys can be trusted)
etc.
And the geologic column is found nowhere in the world; if it was, it'd be thicker than the earth's crust...
Also, the fossil record is 95% sea creatures, which are scattered throughout all the layers, including on top of mountains. :p
So... in short (there is more) the fossil record does NOT back you up.
And speaking of sea floors, etc.
With the current rate of erosion, the oceans would not have existed millions of years ago; then where would the water to erode come from?
And finally, the Grand Canyon...
Where is the Delta? How did the water flow uphill to carve through the top of the canyon?
And why did Mt St. Helens' eruption lay down nice layers and then have a canyon that looks like a mini (1/40th scale) Grand Canyon carved through it in one day?
You probably don't know what the @#!@# I'm talking about, being from overseas and all, :lol: but you can google it; and I will explain in further detail later.
'til then,
m
-
stop wasting time on m.
he's obviously stupid.
-
This stinks. I come here and read you guys' posts, and then I have to respond with just a little one-liner because I have to do things in my life outside HLP (yes, I'm one of those people that has one). Anyway.
PLEASE stop bringing up the Catholic Church (no offense to Catholics out there); they consider the Pope to be above the Bible, thereby nullifying anything in it that the fallible man decides he doesn't like.
And BTW, more on speaking outside of your fields...
Darwin - theology
Lyell - lawyer (and we all know how much those guys can be trusted)
etc.
And the geologic column is found nowhere in the world; if it was, it'd be thicker than the earth's crust...
Also, the fossil record is 95% sea creatures, which are scattered throughout all the layers, including on top of mountains. :p
So... in short (there is more) the fossil record does NOT back you up.
And speaking of sea floors, etc.
With the current rate of erosion, the oceans would not have existed millions of years ago; then where would the water to erode come from?
And finally, the Grand Canyon...
Where is the Delta? How did the water flow uphill to carve through the top of the canyon?
And why did Mt St. Helens' eruption lay down nice layers and then have a canyon that looks like a mini (1/40th scale) Grand Canyon carved through it in one day?
You probably don't know what the @#!@# I'm talking about, being from overseas and all, :lol: but you can google it; and I will explain in further detail later.
'til then,
m
Meh, sorry about that, that was one of those random rants I wanted to do for a long time...
Anyway, according to you, the origin of life is theology, so you can't use Darwin as an OOField person (grins evilly). Nah, that's a junky argument.
Pfft, the top of the canyon was the first bit eroded, it then eroded the bottom parts later. (unless I misunderstand you...)
Water doesn't need to flow uphill, it needs to be flowing the other way...
Having creature fossils on top of mountains can be explained by tectonic plate shifts.
Thicker than the earth's crust doesn't say much, earth's crust is, proportionately, thinner than an eggshell on an egg (if the egg is earth).
Nice layers from mount st. helens is one of the easier physics questions.
Anyway, we are kinda off topic. Who... cares... that... the grand canyon shape can't be explained by geology (though it can). It has nothing to do with evolution, everything to do with wasting our time explaining, everything to do with advancing the creationist viewpoint by making remarks that say "modern science is BS".
To do with evolution, the fossil record easily backs us up, with transitional fossils, etc.
So... your comment says the pope is fallible, but the Bible isn't? The bible is the ultimate authority? Ok... Where does the bible say "and deny the sacrament of marrige to those who god designed screwy". Think about it.
Man, such a creator has emotional and logical instability...
But, as for the creator in general, my last part of point 3 stands.
So... does outside field also apply to off-topic?
(BTW, I'm being the scientifially blind here. The one who blindly clings to science. I'll let the other people do the technical arguments, as I really haven't gotten to far in some of the technical aspects here. I have a good excuse though...)
Actually, when did I bring up the Catholic Church? I used one example....
Come to think of it, good idea, the four things you don't discuss are sex, religion, politics, and money. No, I'm not going to apply that to your argument... But I want to.... :sigh:
-
I'm half dead sleepy atm so pardon the 'bwahhh.....'ness
And the geologic column is found nowhere in the world; if it was, it'd be thicker than the earth's crust...
what the hell are you talking about?
Also, the fossil record is 95% sea creaturesuhh...not sure about that, but it would make sence given that most life is in the sea, and the sea floor is made largely from dead sea creatures (limestone is basicly seashells), which are scattered Scatered? throughout all the layers no, not realy, there might be a layer in wich there was sea then a layer were the sea was gone, then another layer were the ground level droped again and a new sea formed, including on top of mountains.yeah, read up on how mountans form to explain that, mountan tops oftine times were ocean floors at some point in there history :p
So... in short (there is more) the fossil record does NOT back you up.
yes it does
And speaking of sea floors, etc.
With the current rate of erosion, the oceans would not have existed millions of years ago water would simply fill the lowest levels of land as it...; then where would the water to erode come from?...escaped from geological gasses, a huge amount of water this day escapes from volcanic vents.
And finally, the Grand Canyon...oh, you've been listening to the ICR guy again haven't you
Where is the Delta?go here (http://maps.google.com/) find califonia, go to the southern most part of it, you will see a tall narrow gulf formed by mexico and the baja paninsula(part of mexico), this gulf is knowen as 'the gulf of california'. turn on satalite or hybrid view, if you zoom in to the very most northern part of the gulf you will find streaching from the US border (near were Arizona and California meet) all the way to the gulf a desert like reagon, this is the river's delta. here is a picture of it(http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/EPIC/Geologic/Satellite/Streams/images/EP_0047_JD_ST_03.jpg). How did the water flow uphill to carve through the top of the canyon?it didn't.
And why did Mt St. Helens' eruption lay down nice layers and then have a canyon that looks like a mini (1/40th scale) Grand Canyon carved through it in one day?because that was extreemly soft volcanic ash
You probably don't know what the @#!@# I'm talking about, being from overseas and all, :lol: but you can google it; and I will explain in further detail later.
'til then,
m
how old do you think the earth is and why?
-
This stinks. I come here and read you guys' posts, and then I have to respond with just a little one-liner because I have to do things in my life outside HLP (yes, I'm one of those people that has one). Anyway.
Hooray, insulting everyone on HLP! What a great way to start off a great post. :)
PLEASE stop bringing up the Catholic Church (no offense to Catholics out there); they consider the Pope to be above the Bible, thereby nullifying anything in it that the fallible man decides he doesn't like.
Why don't you stop ignoring the catholic church? It's all the same damn religion, and now you're saying that a considerably large portion of your religion, under which there are undoubtedly several million followers, are completely wrong for no good reason? How tolerant.
And BTW, more on speaking outside of your fields...
Darwin - theology
Lyell - lawyer (and we all know how much those guys can be trusted)
etc.
Come again? I understand you're probably in a hurry, but could you explain that a little? Thanks. :)
And the geologic column is found nowhere in the world; if it was, it'd be thicker than the earth's crust...
No idea what you mean by that, i'll let the other lads handle it.
Also, the fossil record is 95% sea creatures, which are scattered throughout all the layers, including on top of mountains. :p
Fair enough, that's actually pretty accurate. There are sea-creature fossils on the tops of mountains, most famously perhaps being Mount Everest. Of course, plate tectonics and continental drift fully explain this, so I suggest you look it up on the wiki.
So... in short (there is more) the fossil record does NOT back you up.
*Chuckles* No.
And speaking of sea floors, etc.
With the current rate of erosion, the oceans would not have existed millions of years ago; then where would the water to erode come from?
What? Again, look up plate tectonics and continental drift. You'll learn that there have always been oceans covering a good part of the planet. Millions of years ago before the continents broke up, half the planet was ocean, along with a rather sizable sea named the Tethys [sp?] that we now call the Mediterranian [ugh, I can never spell that].
Oceans are destroyed, there's no doubt about that; the Pacific is getting smaller, and will be destoyed in a relatively short time [relative to the age of most oceans, of course]. Hell, a good portion of the East Coast of Australia, upon which I currently reside, was once the Pacific ocean. However, Oceans are also formed, such as the Atlantic, which is currently widening as the Americas and Europe & Africa move away from each other [gross simplification, but bare with me].
Seriously, look up either plate tectonics or continental drift on the Wiki and have a read, it's really quite fascinating, and one of the reasons I chose to get into Geology in Uni.
And finally, the Grand Canyon...
Where is the Delta? How did the water flow uphill to carve through the top of the canyon?
And why did Mt St. Helens' eruption lay down nice layers and then have a canyon that looks like a mini (1/40th scale) Grand Canyon carved through it in one day?
I'm not giong to touch any of these and just let Aldo or someone rip into you, as i've got class in about 3 minutes and simply don't have the time atm.
You probably don't know what the @#!@# I'm talking about, being from overseas and all, :lol: but you can google it; and I will explain in further detail later.
We know what you're talking about, do you?
'til then,
m
Yes, toodles.
-
I thought Tethys was more the Indian ocean.
-
Spatially, you are correct. The Indian Ocean [and India] now occupies the area where the Tethys once stood, that is, if an ocean could stand [:p]. However, the remnant of the ocean itself I believe is now the Med, not to mention a few little bits of it surviving in the Black and Caspian seas.
-
m, just how old are you? Some of the points you pointed out can be picked apart by 12/13 year old children. I'm serious, at that age I was learning about plate tectonics and evolution in school. Very basic might I add, but enough to clear some of those doubts.
-
he's a young earth creationist, the earth isn't old enough in his mind for any of that.
incedently this was reply number 777 to this thread ;7
-
Now, now, let's at least let him defend his position. He may have just been really, really, really drunk, stoned and sleep deprived when he made that post. :)
-
This stinks. I come here and read you guys' posts, and then I have to respond with just a little one-liner because I have to do things in my life outside HLP (yes, I'm one of those people that has one). Anyway.
...snip
[/quote]
Y'know what? I was going to pick through the talk origins list of creationist claims (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html), but why should I bother? Firstly, you've clearly not read anything posted before, because we've done all this (one specific point; do you think there's a reason we quote modern research rather than Darwin or Lyell?). Secondly, you quote these 'facts' (well, you try to present them as such), but never offer any explanation or justification.
For example;
And speaking of sea floors, etc.
With the current rate of erosion, the oceans would not have existed millions of years ago; then where would the water to erode come from?
Explain this. Why does the current rate of erosion contradict, er, the established geological science? What is the current rate of erosion anyways? i.e. display that you're not just picking up random phrases that sound smart to you and indicate you have some sort of basic interest beyond regurgitating this pap.
well, ok; one because Mefustae asked....
And finally, the Grand Canyon...
Where is the Delta? How did the water flow uphill to carve through the top of the canyon?
And why did Mt St. Helens' eruption lay down nice layers and then have a canyon that looks like a mini (1/40th scale) Grand Canyon carved through it in one day?
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/canform.htm (formation of the grand canyon - with big colourful diagrams)
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm (more detailed; oh, and if you just quote the first sentence and don't read the bloody page, I will flagellate you)
Missisipi delta; http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD211.html
Mt. Helens; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH581_1.html / http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html
And no, i'm not going to expand further or summarize. Consider this a test as to whether you can bloody read & take in links for once in your life......
Sigh. This really does depress me, this does. we've gone from 'noah was real' to 'evolution is evil ammoral aetheism' back to, in effect 'noah was real'.
-
he's just going to show up a month from now not comenting on any of this crap, he needs to find a way to get a cuple of hours free were he can actualy engauge in this discusion, rather than just snipeing at it intermitently.
-
I know. I try not to let it piss me off, in the hope that Joe Public will read this thread and maybe learn something, but I'm only human and it is very frustrating to see this sort of damaging stuff existing in the modern day.
-
I know. I try not to let it piss me off, in the hope that Joe Public will read this thread and maybe learn something, but I'm only human and it is very frustrating to see this sort of damaging stuff existing in the modern day.
Joe Public doesn't care. Joe Public prefers to watch NASCAR.
-
I stopped debating simply because there was nothing to debate, a debate requires evidence on both sides, not just one side saying 'You haven't got every last single mote of detail yet, therefore our argument is right by default.'.
-
There really is no point replying to M. He has consistently ignored every single rebuttle to his Hovind rip off arguments. Anything you say will just be either ignored completley or just hand waved away without a second thought to be replaced with an equally ignorent question. Most of all he knows nothing about the subject that he is arguing against, so not only are you trying to correct his argument you also know he doesnt understand what you're talking about. You cant give someone an education on a messge board especialy if they dont want to learn anything. Thats what professional Creationists pander to, the ignorent impressionable population. As Intelligent Design supporter in Dover Pastor Ray Mummert accurately put it, "We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.” Yes, I agree with Ray.
-
Not a proof of evolution, but I stumbled into this news article that's related to teaching evolution in classes.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/kansasevolution.ap/index.html
-
Evolution, schmevolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nxzJaWk4wY&search=Evolution%20Schmevolution).
-
Evolution, schmevolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nxzJaWk4wY&search=Evolution%20Schmevolution).
:lol:
-
Just found this on Reddit and thought it might be of interest:
Why the Second Law of Thermodynamics Doesn't Prohibit Entropy Decrease in a Closed System (http://www.1729.com/blog/SecondLawDoesntProhibitEntropyDecrease.html)
-
Huh, that's pretty interesting. :) I'll definitely need to show that to my Physics professor and see what he says about that.
I've had some discussions related to this with a couple creationists before, and it's depressing because I've asked them to prove that they understand the law (by explaining how a refrigerator works, or something), and they can't even give a proper answer. I find it sickening when someone tries to make an arguement against something they dont understand, using physics which they don't understand either. :doubt:
-
What that actually says is "second law of thermodynamics doesn't prohibit entropy decrease, but entropy decrease is pretty improbable on a large scale"
I just remember a thing on quantum physics I saw "It's possible (albeit very improbable) that all the air in this room could move to the four corners, and leave us in a vacuum."
-
What that actually says is "second law of thermodynamics doesn't prohibit entropy decrease, but entropy decrease is pretty improbable on a large scale"
I just remember a thing on quantum physics I saw "It's possible (albeit very improbable) that all the air in this room could move to the four corners, and leave us in a vacuum."
Then again the probability of that happening is so small it might as well be impossible.
-
That's not even quantum physics. It's simple gas kinetics actually. All atoms of a gas are constantly in motion. If by chance they all happened to move away from a single point then that point would be in a vacuum.
Quantum physics it the one responsible for explaining why the parts of me don't suddenly do the the same thing :D
-
Meh, I read it in "In search of Schrodinger's cat"
It was something to do with improbability.....
And now I understand antimatter!
Haha, it would be funny to say to my friends "look, there's a vacuum.... there!" "where?" "whoops, it's gone now..." "whaaaa?"
?
-
this of course totaly ignores the fact that thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
-
Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org
this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org
(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org
-
From ICR frontpage:
We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism.
Why? Why do these people have to feel that science is in some way threat to their religion?
-
Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org
this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org
(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org
Do you even read what you post? Seriously now. You can tell us.
-
oh, god...
"hey I know I'm going to just post links to three of the most discredited websites on the internet that have been singled out by name a couple dozen times in this thread as being BS pits"
I mean gotam... at least the other guys put forth the effort to link to something on those sites.
-
looking at Charismatic's links makes me ROFLCOPTER
-
Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org
this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org
(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org
I thought you were actually reading what we replied earlier?
-
Why did i not link to anything specific? Well, they address many issues, and instead of just pointing out one, i gave you the main link so you can search around and see the different topics they address.
Atleast they put forth the effort to link to something? I thought this would be more thoughtfull then to give you 10 links for each site, pointing out the different topics. Tried to be helpfull.
Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org
this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org
(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org
Do you even read what you post? Seriously now. You can tell us.
Do i read? Yes. Most of the time i think about it as well. "You can tell us." Can tell you what? What the point is? As i said, i gave the general link so you could explore the many topics on your own.
I inteded to just pop in. I did not keep up sence last i left this topic.
@Bobboau: If they are the 3 most discredited sites, what are the 3 most credited sites? If you know whats discredited, you must know what is credited then. What a coincidence that the very 3 links i post are the 'most' discredited. L o l.
-
because you can't? and you know you'll loose any debate in the argument that you attempt to engage in - so instead you make a fallicious argumentum ad verencundiam since those websites you are linking are not valid expert sources in anything other than expert creation of bull**** :P
-
Finially got round to answering this one.
He is right no scientist would consider Intelligent Design. Thats because Intelligent Design says its a scientific theory, but it isnt science. Science cant test the supernatural, but science will gladly give ID a chance if it ever came up with something that was testable and objective. IDs poster child of Irreducibly Complexity can be shown to be bad logic without even without turning to science. But the problem is guys in the Discovery Institute dont DO any science at all. They spend all their time lobbying school boards, and making presentations to the media. Thats not how you do science!
--- many quotes from the Discovery Institute ---
[quotes from the Discovery Institute snipped) :rolleyes:
What was all that for? Im well aware of what DI's website says. Just what did you think your quoting spree display proved?
:confused:
You arent confusing abiogenesis with evolution again are you?
abiogenesis=The creation of the first life. evolution=What that life had better have done in an awful big hurry if it hoped to survive past the first generation. How many abiogenesis incidents did we need before we got one that evolved the ability to replicate itself? Your slate is being wiped clean each time the original organism expires. And, we'd better hope that it evolves the ability to replicate itself correctly!
Im afraid Im not as clued up on developments in abiogenesis. Its a theory that still has a long way to go. Point is, your question above is irrelevant. Whats so hard for you guys to understand? It doesnt matter how it started, Evolution assumes it already did. Evolution theory does not depend on abiogenesis in the same way as germ theory doesnt depend on abiogenesis, similarly the theory of gravity also doesnt depend on The Big Bang.
I dont believe in an afterlife, but most "evolutionists" are theists. Scientists and Christians like Ken Miller and the renouned palentologist and fiery Bible-believing pentacostol preacher Dr Rev Robbert Bakker have no problem with it either. The issue there is faith Jr.
Erm, so they believe that God is, but that He is totaly inconsequential, because He had nothing to do with our being here?
I wont presume to speak for them. Why dont you ask them yourself? Theres plenty around. Heres a small selection to get you started/thinking:
ACG: Affilication of Christian Geologists:
http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/index.stm
Ex-YEC and ICR member geologist Glenn Morton:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fld.htm
Clergy Letter Project:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm
Ken Miller page:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
...and his book Finding Darwins God:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060930497/ref=ed_oe_p/104-4442131-6426337?n=283155
Dr Rev Bob Bakker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker
Theres lots at Christianforums.com in the 'origins theology'' (http://www.christianforums.com/f143-origins-theology.html) and ''debate'' (http://www.christianforums.com/f70-creation-evolution.html) sections, if you want to talk to them there. The "origins theology" section is Christian only. The theistic evolutionists wont mind discussing with you what they believe, if you do it nicely.
Or that he did have something to do with our being here, but there's no proof of that, and we should just take His word for it, because He said so, and God doesn't lie,
This assumes god wrote the Bible literally and there is no human error contained within its pages. I guess I should point out that not only was the Bible written by men, it was also compiled by men. There are many books we do not have that are spoken about in the Bible and the Apocrypha.
Poor maths doesn't prove anything.
Neither does poor spelling x2.
Firstly, Im going to be the bigger man here and just say thats how we shorten the word "Mathematics" in England. Maths is spelt correctly. As for missing an apostrophe, well, sometimes I just dont think it matters too much on forums so occasionally I dont bother correcting it. As for anything else, I do check my posts but sometimes I do miss things which is why you'll find some errors like this especially if they are as gigantic as these tend to get.
Secondly, if you werent trying to be such a smart ass you might have realised that I wasnt trying to prove anything to you with spelling. You were however trying to prove something to us with maths.
Big deal, Americans arent so smart.
Funny how they've got all the tech, though.
America wont be one of the main players in the science game for long if Creationists succeed in trying to redefine what science is. Not all citizens of America invent things, and just because you invent something doesnt mean you are a scientist btw.
Point is most professional scientists, especially those working in relevant fields, reject Creationism and support Evolution as science. And if you poll those in higher education many more people accept evolution than if you just polled the general public. The general public, generally, is pretty ignorent.
http://www.fugly.com/videos/5807/interview_about_world_affairs.html
Funny. In a canned sort of way. You do know that those clips were canned, right?
Im sure they did pick all the dumb responces, but I see these kinds of people on a daily basis. I dont know where you live, but it must be quite nice if these people dont exist.
And science isnt decided by popular vote of an ignorent impressionable populous, but that is what Creationists pander to.
Career advise: Don't ever run for public office, unless you lie about the people you want to vote for you.
It would be pretty hard for me to pretend to support Creationism for sure.
What do you mean "wrong"? The Force in Star Wars is based off Chi, the Taoist concept of mystical energy. (which like I said earlier is an atheistic religion)
Is said force intelligent?
The Tao is not an object, being or a thing. The Tao is left undefined as it is said to be undefinable. It is intelligent only in a sence, and not in the relevant sence you're implying.
"Nature acts without intent,
so cannot be described
as acting with benevolence,
nor malevolence to any thing.
In this respect, the Tao is just the same,
though in reality it should be said
that nature follows the rule of Tao..."
-- Tao Te Ching
I believe he means the whole dinosaur>bird thing. And don't ask me why they think there's no evidence for that.
Because you can hardly have the darn things evolving for a million years without having a million remains showing all the various stages in-between, probably in the same place as others like it. (And, if fossils are so hard to form, then how come the fossils we do find are all fully functioning kinds? You would expect some in-between forms aka "missing links" to be found.)
....
Birds are modified dinosaurs? How did they manage to evolve hollow bones at the same time as wings at the same time as stronger muscles to power those wings at the same time as larger lungs to give oxygen to said muscles at the same time as a set of legs that could take the landing? Before you had anything close to a working product, you would have a liability that would be culled.
Your first misconception you make is making the mistake of thinking everything that makes up the birds wings must have evolved specifically for that purpose as it is used in birds today.
Your second misconception you make is making the mistake of thinking that evolution makes creatures evolve useless and needless bodyparts until something else comes along to make it usefull. We can see you think that when you talk about us only finding fossils with "fully functioning" body parts. This is actually what we would expect to find. Evolution doesnt mean evolving useless appendages like many Creationists make out, and if thats how they present Evolution to you be sure they are either lying or ignorent.
Your third misconception you make is the mistake of thinking that we would expect to find all possible stages for an organism in the fossil record. While we do have many stages, entire stages for some lineages, fossilization is still a rare event. So Creationists making out that we should expect to absolutely-every-single stage for every creature is a misrepresentation of fossilisation. I should also say that when I say "stage", this is a rather inaccurate word to use as evolution is gradual. Jumping is not what Evolution does like some Creationists would pretend it is.
Your forth misconception you make is that we have found no intermediate fossils. You probably know about Archaeopteryx, but we have found lots of feathered dinosaurs. We have found birds with teeth, birds without beaks, birds with half-feathers half-scales, we see the origins of protofeathers and hollow bones and we see vestigial structures like the clawed "fingers" in ratites. If Creationists want to dismiss some fossils as just "a weird bird" as AIG does with Archaeopteryx it never defines what a bird is or what a dinosaur is (neither do they define "kind" at all). It never attempts to explain why all birds are still archosaurs, and why there is not a single characteristic shared by all members of either group collectively that is not also shared by the other. Creationists never explain these things or why we find nails and hooves on the flippers of manatees or why snakes should grow legs, feet and toes which are reabsorbed back into the body during embryonic development.
Evolution theory is very specific about what we should and shouldnt find. Creationism on the other hand is never specific about anything. It uses terms like "kinds" and "information", yet these are never defined in any objective way yet they are used (and abused) as if they were. If various kinds of animals were specially created apart from everything else we would expect to find some indication of that. You might expect to find a snake constructed of prokyotic cells, or a vertibrate with six limbs instead of four but in reality all life appears to have evolved from commen ancesters. All organisms fit neatly into a nested hirearchy without exception following the specific criteria that Evolution theory proposes. This creator could create however it likes but it apparently never chooses to violate this system and the only reason Creationists give for any of this is that that is how the designer decided to to it.
No, evolution does not "design" us to fit together in harmony; it only favors those that reproduce the most efficiently and manage to survive the best. That could favor working together in harmony until you started running out of resources.
And if you did, you'd have to evolve into a predator awfully fast, before you starved.
You dont evolve just because you are predator, many organisms arent predators at all. After you said Evolution "only favors those that reproduce the most efficiently and manage to survive the best", that was correct and you should have stopped talking
I suppose it's worth doubly reinforcing that evolution is diverging, not converging.
Diverging, as in separating out from a common source, vs converging, or merging to a common destination. Ok, I must have missed it. Who said that we were evolving to a common destination?
Covergent evolution doesnt mean evolving to a common destination, its when similar structures evolve in different lineages for similar purposes.
Meanwhile, have a look at these:
Evolutionism: The New Intolerance (http://www.geocities.com/joshuap_richards/evolutionism_the_new_intolerance.doc)
Scientific Intolerance (http://www.geocities.com/joshuap_richards/scientific_intolerance.doc)
I have articles that have more to do with the thread topic, but I have to go through them. Meanwhile, have a look.
PS The address given in those articles is outdated. The e-mail still works, though.
Ok, I read them. Its the same old misinformation and ignorence that you display throughout your posts. If you were going to give me a Creationist source even I know of better examples.
EDIT: Darn 50,000 char limit. Oh, well, I guess I'll just pull an Ed. ;)
I didnt even realise there was a charcter limit in HLP.
Ed
-
@Bobboau: If they are the 3 most discredited sites, what are the 3 most credited sites? If you know whats discredited, you must know what is credited then. What a coincidence that the very 3 links i post are the 'most' discredited. L o l.
Because they're the most popular, best funded propagandist sites. They are well known to be funded by fundamentalist Christian groups and to release 'statements' (or somesuch) which are scientifically flawed in numerous ways, which are realised for the sole purpose of evangelising.
NB: regarding credited; the issue is that there is not one single 'credited' site, really, because evolutionary biology is a huge field with many disparate individuals working in it. A 'credited' site would be something like Nature, or other academic periodicals; unlike creationism, there is no paid evangelising for evolution. What you need to bear in mind is, science does not have sites devoted to preaching a single answer; the 3 organizations you linked have the sole purpose of publicising creationism, regardless of contradictory evidence. There is no evolutionary equivalent because science does not presuppose an answer (it's the antithesis of rational investigation) but just presents the best evidenced theory. Even if you look at TalkOrigins (which it's worth noting references peer-reviewed scientific investigation), it's purpose is actually debunking the wilfull misinformation (deliberate unscientific fallacies presented in a misleading way) spread by the likes of these propagandistic groups.
-
Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org
this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org
(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org
Do you even read what you post? Seriously now. You can tell us.
Do i read? Yes. Most of the time i think about it as well. "You can tell us." Can tell you what? What the point is? As i said, i gave the general link so you could explore the many topics on your own.
I inteded to just pop in. I did not keep up sence last i left this topic.
I meant that you posted blatantly propagandist sites in an effort to 'educate' us. I'm not entirely sure whether you're incapable or just plain unwilling to realise it, but those sites are incredibly bias, astoundingly full of misinformation, and not worth the space they take up on the Internet, essentially what Adlo said.
Now, by 'you can tell us', it was my hope that you would put your pride aside and come clean that you don't really read what you post, you just post any old thing not really thinking about it. The fact that you consciously posted three bias, propagandist sites in an effort to show your point of view, and that you think you made a point by doing so... well, it makes me ashamed to be a part of the human race.
-
Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org
this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org
(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org
Do you even read what you post? Seriously now. You can tell us.
Do i read? Yes. Most of the time i think about it as well. "You can tell us." Can tell you what? What the point is? As i said, i gave the general link so you could explore the many topics on your own.
I inteded to just pop in. I did not keep up sence last i left this topic.
I meant that you posted blatantly propagandist sites in an effort to 'educate' us. I'm not entirely sure whether you're incapable or just plain unwilling to realise it, but those sites are incredibly bias, astoundingly full of misinformation, and not worth the space they take up on the Internet, essentially what Adlo said.
Now, by 'you can tell us', it was my hope that you would put your pride aside and come clean that you don't really read what you post, you just post any old thing not really thinking about it. The fact that you consciously posted three bias, propagandist sites in an effort to show your point of view, and that you think you made a point by doing so... well, it makes me ashamed to be a part of the human race.
Ashamed to be apart fo the human race? You DO reach far to make a cut dont you?
First off, i was talking with one of my managers at work one day, about this topic, and he gave me some links. I simply briefly previewed the links myself, and then posted them here as he told me what was in those sites. The ICR site is pritty good. What flaws do they have? A few simple examples would be fine. He explained today (the 2nd time i talked with him about this, today) that, i think the ICR site, is full of people who have been to college and learned people, scienteist, people with PHD's etc. People who have creditablity, not just any unlearned person like i am. Do you discredit and deny that?
-
i think the ICR site, is full of people who have been to college and learned people, scienteist, people with PHD's etc. People who have creditablity, not just any unlearned person like i am. Do you discredit and deny that?
PhDs don't mean a whole lot here. The current president of the ICR is John D Morris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Morris), who is trained to be an engineer. Note that he's not a biologist. Duane Gish (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish"), a former vice-president of the ICR (he appeared on the show "Bull****!" in an episode on Creationism), has pretty much been uninvolved in scientific research while promoting his creationist bull****. Which makes sense; why would you want your perfectly absurd creationism to be debunked thoroughly through peer-review and all the rigor required for publication as a piece of science?
Also note that the ICR was founded as a division of the San Diego Christian College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Christian_College), which had its accreditation revoked by the WASC. If you look in the Wiki article you'll see that part of the reasoning for the revocation was due to "lack of evidence to support that the College is sufficiently autonomous from the supporting church to be an accreditable entity". Which basically means it's a puppet organization for the church. I sense some conflict of interest here.
-
Ashamed to be apart fo the human race? You DO reach far to make a cut dont you?
I cannot abide useless people.
First off, i was talking with one of my managers at work one day, about this topic, and he gave me some links. I simply briefly previewed the links myself, and then posted them here as he told me what was in those sites. The ICR site is pritty good. What flaws do they have? A few simple examples would be fine. He explained today (the 2nd time i talked with him about this, today) that, i think the ICR site, is full of people who have been to college and learned people, scienteist, people with PHD's etc. People who have creditablity, not just any unlearned person like i am. Do you discredit and deny that?
Kamikaze already pointed out the biggest flaws in your reasoning quite well, but i'll just put it here more succinctly to aid in your understanding.
Answer me this, would you allow someone with a PhD in Astrophysics who goes to the Aquarium once a month to give a University-level Lecture on Marine Biology?
You tout a PhD-holding individual as completely credible, but doesn't it stand to reason that someone who holds a PhD Agriculture isn't really going to know **** about Subatomic Theory? Jr2 was making the same silly mistake when he took issue with 'peer-reviewed' material, in that all the education in the world doesn't really mean much if it is not in the same field as the topic we are discussing.
-
Ashamed to be apart fo the human race? You DO reach far to make a cut dont you?
First off, i was talking with one of my managers at work one day, about this topic, and he gave me some links. I simply briefly previewed the links myself, and then posted them here as he told me what was in those sites. The ICR site is pritty good. What flaws do they have? A few simple examples would be fine. He explained today (the 2nd time i talked with him about this, today) that, i think the ICR site, is full of people who have been to college and learned people, scienteist, people with PHD's etc. People who have creditablity, not just any unlearned person like i am. Do you discredit and deny that?
Feeling lazy; ICR criticisms;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit.html
Ultimately, just pick any point and look up http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/
All these links have sources. Also, if you dig around for a list of ICR staff, very few have independently peer-reviewed research published. Not to mention those with 'degrees' from phony institutions, or working well outside their field. I have a BSc(Hons) in Computer Science, that doesn't mean I'd be competent to teach english literature or history at degree level.
-
Yes it does, :nod:
OK, maybe it doesn't :(
-
Charamatic, if you can go try and download the Penn&Teller episode on this stuff. Bob posted it somewhere in this thread.
-
He did? When? I've stuck with this thread most of the time, and I don't recall any P&T.
-
I don't remember. I am pretty sure he did though.......
-
First off, i was talking with one of my managers at work one day, about this topic, and he gave me some links. I simply briefly previewed the links myself, and then posted them here as he told me what was in those sites. The ICR site is pritty good. What flaws do they have? A few simple examples would be fine. He explained today (the 2nd time i talked with him about this, today) that, i think the ICR site, is full of people who have been to college and learned people, scienteist, people with PHD's etc. People who have creditablity, not just any unlearned person like i am. Do you discredit and deny that?
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fld.htm
Geologist Glenn Morton used to be a member of ICR, and wrote many articles for their publications. But in his work as a geologist he just couldnt reconcile what ICR was telling him to believe with what he saw in the field. Ie. the Earth just couldn be young and there was no world wide flood. Check out his site, he is now an outspoken supporter of Evolution and Christianity.
But why are institutions like AIG and ICR so unscientific? For me the main reason why is that they, like most Creationist groups, have to sign sworn statements that they will never let any evidence change their minds. Thats not how you do science, and no matter what degrees you have, cant be defended.
-
Yep. One of the fundemental points of science is that nothing is cherished to the point that it can't be struck from the books if the evidence is against it. The creationists like to paint a picture of scientists refusing to believe in any evidence that goes against evolution but the simple fact is that there is no evidence that goes against evolution. If there was then the scientists would listen to it.
-
Good points all around, except im not agreeing with Kara just yet about 'no evidence' comment.
Thursday il have time to look around and check out those links you all gave.
I will also check out the P&T episode.
Thursday i also am intending to get my manager from work, teh link to this site so he can check out this topic, as he Is knoloageable about things, and world affiars (IE: The crap with Israle and stuff), and porbably knows more then me on this subject.
Charis
-
Good points all around, except im not agreeing with Kara just yet about 'no evidence' comment.
Thursday il have time to look around and check out those links you all gave.
I will also check out the P&T episode.
Thursday i also am intending to get my manager from work, teh link to this site so he can check out this topic, as he Is knoloageable about things, and world affiars (IE: The crap with Israle and stuff), and porbably knows more then me on this subject.
Charis
Well, post evidence that hasn't been discredited....
EDIT; wait a second, if he gave you those links, does this mean we'll have to go through the same round of corrections as the last 30+ pages?
-
Good points all around, except im not agreeing with Kara just yet about 'no evidence' comment.
substantiate that claim, post your "Evidence"!
of course that would require you to first understand the CONCEPT of evidence
-
fun how someone can 'know more' about being wrong. but then i'm not here to argue. mostly making fun of the religious people is good enough
-
something I found while trying to find my post with the P&T link:
you can't spell ludicrous with out the letters ICR :).
anyway
Wasn't ICR on that episode of Penn&Teller about this? jr2 should really watch it.
sence you brought it up (http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/Penn_Teller-Creationism.wmv)
-
Thursday i also am intending to get my manager from work, teh link to this site so he can check out this topic, as he Is knoloageable about things, and world affiars (IE: The crap with Israle and stuff), and porbably knows more then me on this subject.
well, hopefully this time we'll get someone who can actualy engage in the discussion rather than just snipe at it once every other week.
-
m, just how old are you? Some of the points you pointed out can be picked apart by 12/13 year old children. I'm serious, at that age I was learning about plate tectonics and evolution in school. Very basic might I add, but enough to clear some of those doubts.
Well, according to this (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=1606), you are apparently 18.
Since you haven't figured out how to check someone's profile on the HLP yet, I went and figured it out for you (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=4641) (although I already know m's age anyways).
-
Eat linkies.
www.answersingenesis.org
this next one i found interesting
www.icr.org
(does this link not work for you guys or is it just me?)
www.creationresearchsociety.org
Erm, the last one should be http://www.creationresearch.org/
-
Since you haven't figured out how to check someone's profile on the HLP yet, I went and figured it out for you (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=4641) (although I already know m's age anyways).
That changes nothing, only that he is somewhat uneducated for a person of his age. Hell, I could explain the basics of plate tectonics and continental drift when I was 14, and he's 17 and never even heard of it!
-
I wasn't commenting on his age in relation to his knowledge; I was commenting on your inability to answer your own question. ;7
Anyways, I am quite sure that m knows about plate tectonics, and I know he knows about evolution. We discuss this thread sometimes, when we have spare time, which we wish we had more of.
Adequate response to questions & points posted here take alot of time, so it's easier to point to another source that's done the work for you & hope the other side has the spare time to read it, which they probably don't. (I'm going to try to read some of those books, if for no other reason than to pass time on the night shift.)
-
I wasn't commenting on his age in relation to his knowledge; I was commenting on your inability to answer your own question. ;7
Anyways, I am quite sure that m knows about plate tectonics, and I know he knows about evolution. We discuss this thread sometimes, when we have spare time, which we wish we had more of.
I didn't ask the question, Ghost did. And I truly question that he [m] knows anything about Plate Tectonics and soforth, as he was asking questions that any Year 8 high-school student can answer quite readily.
-
Plate tectonics..................Do you guys reckon theres an infinite supply of magma etc , or will the earth stop growing after a few billion years after the continental **** reaches its zenith?
-
Age is no barrier to learning, after all.
(Actually, it's better to learn these things young; the brain is designed that way, something which unfortunately makes early-age indoctrination very hard to rectify)
I wasn't commenting on his age in relation to his knowledge; I was commenting on your inability to answer your own question. ;7
Anyways, I am quite sure that m knows about plate tectonics, and I know he knows about evolution. We discuss this thread sometimes, when we have spare time, which we wish we had more of.
It's pretty clear he doesn't, given the number of misunderstandings I've seen so far in this thread. It seems to be a common problem for ID-ers/creationists - perceived problems with evolution that are really stemming from the writers own failure to fully understand the theory. Mind you, I'd apply the same to you based on your statements, so maybe you're not the best equipped to judge someones knowledge of evolution?
-
Plate tectonics..................Do you guys reckon theres an infinite supply of magma etc , or will the earth stop growing after a few billion years after the continental **** reaches its zenith?
Growing? Uh... Earth doesn't grow, people stopped believing that early last century.
To answer your question; yes, the Earth is cooling, slowly but surely. Once this cooling has reached a certain stage [we're talking a billion years or two], plate tectonics will effectively cease, and continents will no longer drift. But remember, continental drift is not culminating in anything, meaning there is no 'zenith', it's a constant process that has been going for as long as there have been plates, and will continue until the aesthenosphere has cooled enough to disallow movement.
It's worth noting this is already seen on Mars, as she is a far older planet than Earth, and has cooled to a degree that plate tectonics has all but ceased. I believe that explains the size of Olympus Mons as well; if I remember correctly, it is theorised that the mountain is situated over a hot-spot [much like Hawaii], and with the plates not drifting at all, the volcano formed has just grown and grown to the size it is now.
Aaaaah, knowledge is a truly wonderful thing.
-
Yup, there are massive Coral Reefs in Tahiti that stretch far too low below the Waterline for Coral to survive there. Science was at a loss to explain this until they realised the the Huge rings of coral had once been around an Island, but the Seabed was sinking by a tiny amount each year. The Coral, in reaction to this, built the reef higher in order to get more sunlight. The sea floor is dropping at a measurable rate, and if the rate of drop is consistent, then the coral reefs are most certainly older than the ID version of planet Earth, however, if the seabed dropped much faster, the Coral would not be able to keep pace and the reefs would never have formed as they are today.
-
but but but but but... IRC! answers in genesis foo! carbon dating isn't accurate back to the supposed age of the earth! giggity giggity goo!
hehe
some times dude.. people are beyond all hope of using their own brain
-
The strange thing is, we 'did' carbon dating something like twice in the older depths of the thread, and I'm pretty sure it shown up - in a serious context - for a third time.
-
hehe... considering i didn't read most of this thread....
-
It's worth noting this is already seen on Mars, as she is a far older planet than Earth, and has cooled to a degree that plate tectonics has all but ceased. I believe that explains the size of Olympus Mons as well; if I remember correctly, it is theorised that the mountain is situated over a hot-spot [much like Hawaii], and with the plates not drifting at all, the volcano formed has just grown and grown to the size it is now.
You're correct in saying that Mars doesn't have moving plates (hence the much larger volcanoes), but I'm pretty certain that it isn't really that much older than the Earth. The inner planets condensed out of the solar nebula at more or less the same time.
See the following links for some good reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_the_solar_system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_the_solar_system)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars)
-
i think that what keeps the inside of earth heated up and moving much more than mars is our moon. one thing earth has that mars lacks is tidal forces, from a larger orbiting body. in the old days (billions of years ago) the moon was alot closer, and even changed the shape of the planet as it went around the earth, this compressed and stretched the inside of the earth, with the effects of heating and moving the insides. mars has 2 dinky little pieces of rock that orbit it, no comparison to earth's moon.
i submit that this is based solely on things i saw on the discovery and national geographic channels, in conjunction with Physics 201, 208, and 205 at NCSU, and that i may be completely wrong.
edit for wierd class number system (not nearly as wierd as UNC's used to be *sticks out tongue at UNC ppl*)
-
Mars is significantly smaller. Not as much insulation.
-
also further away from the sun - not as much solar energy, also thinner atmosphere
-
In fact, larger planets cool down faster than smaller ones, IIRC, because although if the radius is increased (making it take longer for heat to reach the surface), the surface area is also increased by 4(pi)r2.
-
theories also are that the earth has a fair number of radioactive isotopes in the core that are generating head
-
kaz... too much sig, circumcise those quotes.
and while the rate of heat loss might be greater on larger planets the amount of heat will be increased an order of magnitude faster.
-
:wtf: :mad: :hopping: and since you asked me to shorten my sig that way: **** NO
-
:wtf: :mad: :hopping: and since you asked me to shorten my sig that way: **** NO
There are simpler and less space-consuming methods of quoting you could, and probably should, have adopted in the first place. But as you are incapable of admitting error, I eagerly await your bizarre, otherworldly explanation.
-
ummm... k...
please?
-
You're correct in saying that Mars doesn't have moving plates (hence the much larger volcanoes), but I'm pretty certain that it isn't really that much older than the Earth. The inner planets condensed out of the solar nebula at more or less the same time.
I was under the impression that, while Mars wasn't 'considerably older' relative to the Solar-system itself, the smaller size of the planet gave it a head-start in solid plate tectonics and thus the system 'petered-out' before us.
-
:wtf: :mad: :hopping: and since you asked me to shorten my sig that way: **** NO
There are simpler and less space-consuming methods of quoting you could, and probably should, have adopted in the first place. But as you are incapable of admitting error, I eagerly await your bizarre, otherworldly explanation.
yet another example in how NOT to ask me to shorten my signature, i know exactly how to could have made it clear they were qutoations in nine million different ways. I chose quote blocks. deal with it until you you can manage to talk to me without being insulting and presumptious
[edit] let me further expound on the presumptious arrogance of this comment. I have admitted error before on this very forum, I have had other people convince me I was wrong by presenting superior evidence, and I have in the same thread promptly switched to arguing on that side of the arguing using the same evidence they presented to me.
Furthermore if I was really this arrogant "unable to admit when wrong" person i most certainly would not be engaged, and soon, married to the girl I am with - she (nor I) have any tolerance for such people.
Do not confuse high standards of evidence for not listening, just because your "Evidence" does not qualify as evidence in an argument doesn't mean I'm simply dismissing it, especially since when I dismiss "Evidence" I tell you why so you can attempt to support your evidence.
-
well I wasn't trying to be insulting, in fact I'm probly your best freind on this board, given how everytime you get in trouble I'm always the one trying to calm every one down, and in fact quite recently I sugtested you should be given free reign to say what ever you wanted. but... what ever....
-
yes, and I also know you understand fairly well what I consider insulting and obnoxious so you know that I would consider your post as such
-
and here i was thinking it was an innocent joke
-
and here i was thinking it was an innocent joke
You're not alone.
-
it wasn't funny
-
Yes it was, just a little.
-
anyway... thanks:)
and back to the earth cooling slower than mars.
-
BTW, I just NOW noticed that you had an active thread on the subject. the thing that made me think to make a coment referenceing that subject was one of the quotes themselves.
I supose this could to some degree explain your reaction.
-
the earth is warm and comfortable (sometimes) and it awesome thunderstorms :D
-
You're correct in saying that Mars doesn't have moving plates (hence the much larger volcanoes), but I'm pretty certain that it isn't really that much older than the Earth. The inner planets condensed out of the solar nebula at more or less the same time.
I was under the impression that, while Mars wasn't 'considerably older' relative to the Solar-system itself, the smaller size of the planet gave it a head-start in solid plate tectonics and thus the system 'petered-out' before us.
Hmm, that would make sense, but I'm not 100% knowledgeable about this subject either. I'll go see if I can find some info/sources pertaining to Martian plate techtonics, or the lack thereof.
-
ifyou like storms you should have seen the ones we had a few weeks ago, holy crap!
-
lol i thought i had mentioned it before.. if I hadn't learned how to program I would have been getting a degree in meteorology specializing in tornado field research (ie storm chasing)
-
you've mentioned it, the 'if you like storms' part was mostly retorical.
point being we had some hell storms just pop up out of no were, literaly an hour before the power went out they were saying '20% chance of rain', then the sky turns black as blood and fire rains down from the heavens... followed by rain, lots of it, then two days later the exact same thing happened, power went out at work and the plant got closed down.
-
yeah we had some hell of storms this morning.. infact *yawns* they started about 90 minutes before I wake up in the morning and kept waking me up
-
ours was essentaly a catagory 1 huricane. :)
-
Where was this?
-
St.Louis, Mo, USA
Jul 26 and 28
-
If you could arrange for one of those hurricanes to hit San Diego I'd be most greatful...
-
so... YECs how old is the earth, and why do you think this?
-
Incidentally, I was reading today that apparently the Hubble constant has been understimated, meaning the universe is likely 15% older and larger than previously calculated.
-
This is for Jr2 didnt believe me when I said most Americans were ignorent.
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060810_evo_rank.html
A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.
Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say."
...
The current study also analyzed the results from a 10-country survey in which adults were tested with 10 true or false statements about basic concepts from genetics. One of the statements was "All plants and animals have DNA." Americans had a median score of 4. (The correct answer is "yes.")
EDIT: Updated Link
-
Link's broken.
-
Think it's the same as this one; http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=18367
-
Think it's the same as this one; http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=18367
god, this nation is ****ing retarted. :no::ick:
-
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1844478,00.html
Evolution is on the way out - more than 30% of students in the UK say they believe in creationism and intelligent design. Harriet Swain reports on a surprising new survey
Why does it seem like the UK is turning more into the 51st state of the US? I mean really, what is with you guys.......
-
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1844478,00.html
Evolution is on the way out - more than 30% of students in the UK say they believe in creationism and intelligent design. Harriet Swain reports on a surprising new survey
Why does it seem like the UK is turning more into the 51st state of the US? I mean really, what is with you guys.......
**** knows (It's not happening willingly, though).......at least part of it is down to Blairs' 'city academy' concept (privately funded schools), which is leading to what are effectively fundamentalist christian religious schools. It's very worrying; i'm all for political correctness and religious sensitivity, etc, but if that's standing in the way of teachers teaching science as suggested in the article, we have a very real and very damaging problem.
This terrifies me; "In the Opinionpanel survey, nearly 20% said they had been taught creationism as fact by their main school."
That's just wrong, and it's supposed to be illegal under the education guidelines, too.
-
gotamnit Kaz you killed a 5 month long argument! I liked this argument!!!
-
Give it time. When jr2, m, or any other creationism dullards get wiley, this thread will continue. Until then, it'll just continue to hibernate.
-
A thread like this just won't ever die.
-
We've made it the 6th-largest thread ever on HLP, we can't let it die! It must reach number 1!
-
A thread like this just won't ever die.
But it might evolve! :nervous:
-
Explain what god was smoking when the Platypus came along then, I'm for evolution over intelligent design, The Platypus must have evolved cos noone in their right mind would make that from scratch..................
-
Explain what god was smoking when the Platypus came along then, I'm for evolution over intelligent design, The Platypus must have evolved cos noone in their right mind would make that from scratch..................
every crature has its own place on this earth (at least what i have heard :D)... even the platypus
-
OK, fair statement, but in which direction of the arguement does it lend its support, It sounds a bit christian to me.
Not a dig........... :D
-
OK, fair statement, but in which direction of the arguement does it lend its support, It sounds a bit christian to me.
Not really. It just means that every animal exists because it has evolved to fit into an ecological niche.
-
Well at least you chose a side :)
The correct one.......................... Orly?, Ya RLY !
-
I say the place of the Platypus is to make us all scratch our heads and wonder "how the hell did that happen?"
-
...and taste like chicken. :nervous:
-
Since you haven't figured out how to check someone's profile on the HLP yet, I went and figured it out for you (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=4641) (although I already know m's age anyways).
That changes nothing, only that he is somewhat uneducated for a person of his age. Hell, I could explain the basics of plate tectonics and continental drift when I was 14, and he's 17 and never even heard of it!
No, I just wanted to make sure you guys would use the same arguments that all evolutionists use, because honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them (such as saying Haeckel had the right idea regarding embryo development).
Anyway, I'm going to cut loose (for a while) from the manymanymanymanymany different things I've been saying, and focus on one thing that I never really finished: snowflakes.
Evolutionaries: * :mad: *
I think it was kara (means "joy" in Greek) :lol: who brought up the thing of "When I roll dice they obey the same law of gravity so why do they always land differently?"
My response:
Sometimes they land the same!!! ::)
Snowflakes don't! ;7
Hopefully I can get a good response, but 'til then,
m
-
Tell me, what proof do you have that no two snowflakes are the same?
-
*Sigh*
honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them
Commonly known fact; could someone answer my argument here?
PLEEEEEASE? :(
-m
-
No, I just wanted to make sure you guys would use the same arguments that all evolutionists use, because honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them (such as saying Haeckel had the right idea regarding embryo development).
Haeckel did have the right idea regarding embryo development, but he wasnt completely correct either. But beause of him we now have an entire field of science called Embryology. Look it up.
Anyway, I'm going to cut loose (for a while) from the manymanymanymanymany different things I've been saying, and focus on one thing that I never really finished: snowflakes.
My response:
Sometimes they land the same!!! ::)
Snowflakes don't! ;7
What are you trying to say here? Wow, they dont land the same...therefore God? You'd probably think the banana is a good argument for God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A
Dont you realise snowflakes are just one of things that refute the Creationist argument that complexity cannot increase? Ie. "the 2nd law of Thermodynamics refutes evolution" you and Jr2 seem so unable to understand is a load of crap?
Ed
-
Commonly known fact does not equal proof, or even evidence, and most definitely not truth: 1500 years ago it was a commonly known fact that the sun revolved around the earth. 600 years ago it was a commonly known fact that there was no such continent as the Americas. 94 years and 5 months ago it was a commonly known fact that the Titanic was unsinkable. All commonly known facts. All wrong.
So, what proof or even evidence do you have that no two snowflakes are the same? It's a simple enough question, compared all the others you've failed to answer on this thread...
-
*Sigh*
honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them
Commonly known fact; could someone answer my argument here?
PLEEEEEASE? :(
-m
In theory you could get two snowflakes exactly alike. The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero. Snowflake shapes vary greatly on their environment, there are almost infinite different shapes. Its the same reason jewels are so prized because chances are you will never find one "exactly" the same. Big deal.
-
Meh, he ran away without answering the extremely simple question. If it weren't so hilariously funny watching his futile attempts at stringing together an actual argument, this might concievably be frustrating :p Ah well, at least I can wallow in the fact that my very first gut feeling about him proved correct.
-
No, I just wanted to make sure you guys would use the same arguments that all evolutionists use, because honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them (such as saying Haeckel had the right idea regarding embryo development).
The difference between good science and bad science -- religion is being able to fit an answer better to the evidence provided.
People such as Haeckel had questionable concepts with ontogeny follows phylogeny, made even worse when he and others tried to "apply" them. Spencer, the father of Social "Darwinism" is also looked at quite negatively for the same reasons.
I do think it is quite revealing when as opposed to attacking modern research creationists have to pull out debunked centuries old "science" that was questionable in its own day. (Spencer, Larmarck, Yerkes, and Haeckel) For that matter the obession with Darwin. Why don't we see people attacking Paternal Investment theory?
-
Meh, he ran away without answering the extremely simple question. If it weren't so hilariously funny watching his futile attempts at stringing together an actual argument, this might concievably be frustrating :p Ah well, at least I can wallow in the fact that my very first gut feeling about him proved correct.
Whats funny is after pages and pages of him ignoring and hand waving absolutely everything without a second thought, since he clearly doesnt have the first clue about what our responces even mean, he has been reduced to something the thinks he understands. In other words, his last straw.
-
Only drawback is that a) I'm not at work while he's browsing the forum, and b) I don't have access to a computer while working anyhow, as it's 70% outdoors work. It's a pity, would be supreme for alleviating work-boredom. But I'm sure there are some lucky ones outthere in appropriate timezones for whom it does this :)
-
if a train leaves London headed for New york it will never arive in Indonesia. if you apply this annalogy to the transverse wave forms of coton candy in the ocean there will be there right in front of you sheer undenyable proof that there is no god (what a bunch of fools lolrolflmao!!!!!) and if there was then it would mean that I could eat bolders and **** lightning.
this has been another eppisode of mocking m's 'random bull**** as an argument' style.
is there any thought to this at all, snow flakes again, I thought we left that distraction a month ago, but then he never answered any of our responces he just disapeared for a month again.
this disgusts me :doubt: ...
-
Don't take it so hard, think of it as... as... hmmm.... yes!, as a Monty Python sketch. He's the guy in the pet shop who keeps insisting the parrot isn't dead ;)
-
Since you haven't figured out how to check someone's profile on the HLP yet, I went and figured it out for you (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=4641) (although I already know m's age anyways).
That changes nothing, only that he is somewhat uneducated for a person of his age. Hell, I could explain the basics of plate tectonics and continental drift when I was 14, and he's 17 and never even heard of it!
No, I just wanted to make sure you guys would use the same arguments that all evolutionists use, because honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them (such as saying Haeckel had the right idea regarding embryo development).
Anyway, I'm going to cut loose (for a while) from the manymanymanymanymany different things I've been saying, and focus on one thing that I never really finished: snowflakes.
Evolutionaries: * :mad: *
I think it was kara (means "joy" in Greek) :lol: who brought up the thing of "When I roll dice they obey the same law of gravity so why do they always land differently?"
My response:
Sometimes they land the same!!! ::)
Snowflakes don't! ;7
Hopefully I can get a good response, but 'til then,
m
Snowflakes form according to known and measured physical rules regarding (ice) crystal formation. Moreso, there is no physical law barring identical snowflakes; it's just highly unlikely any object in the universe will carry the same arrangement of molecules. In both the case of snowflakes and dice there are a set of known and measured rules regarding what happens, the probabilities, etc. The - supposed - uniqueness of snowflakes is simply a consequence of the increased complexity, much the same as getting the same result from throwing 1000 dice.
-
Don't take it so hard, think of it as... as... hmmm.... yes!, as a Monty Python sketch. He's the guy in the pet shop who keeps insisting the parrot isn't dead ;)
:lol: yeah
-
The snowflakes versus dice analogy is a flawed one. No two dice are the same either. Human eyes are just incapable of seeing the microscopic differences in the dice. Same with snowflakes, but I guess you see a lot more close-up photos of snowflakes than of dice.
-
It's more than that. No two dice throws are exactly the same either. The height varies, the way the dice moved is different.
Put seriously this is beyond pathetic. We've completely demolished every single argument this guy has made and yet he still goes on about snowflakes as if proving me wrong about that will prove him completely right about every single thing we've all said in this debate.
It really won't.
-
It's more than that. No two dice throws are exactly the same either. The height varies, the way the dice moved is different.
Put seriously this is beyond pathetic. We've completely demolished every single argument this guy has made and yet he still goes on about snowflakes as if proving me wrong about that will prove him completely right about every single thing we've all said in this debate.
It really won't.
It's known as moving the goalposts and after a short while it becomes painfully obvious. It is not really worth replying to because it is endless.
The other good way is to rephrase and narrow down your argument ("well show me a mongoloid demigod from outer dimensions of Hell, sent here by Shub-Nigguraht"), until you come up with so ridiculous or unprovable "rebuttal" so that a honest adversary, who is unable to call your bluff, can only surrender. X -> Y != (A[cv]X2^4)/pi -> Y
-
Snowflakes form according to known and measured physical rules regarding (ice) crystal formation. Moreso, there is no physical law barring identical snowflakes; it's just highly unlikely any object in the universe will carry the same arrangement of molecules. In both the case of snowflakes and dice there are a set of known and measured rules regarding what happens, the probabilities, etc. The - supposed - uniqueness of snowflakes is simply a consequence of the increased complexity, much the same as getting the same result from throwing 1000 dice.
In theory you could get two snowflakes exactly alike. The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero. Snowflake shapes vary greatly on their environment, there are almost infinite different shapes. Its the same reason jewels are so prized because chances are you will never find one "exactly" the same. Big deal.
Har.
You are implying that snowflakes are irreducibly complex.
:p
Whereas living organisms are not; they evolved multiple times. You are saying that nonliving snowflakes are more complex than living organisms. Thanks for falling into my nice little trap.
...Of course, you will probably come up with a nice "You can't prove that no two snowflakes are alike!!" but until you show me two that are, I will sit back and laugh at you people who believe in spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis and irreducibly complex snowflakes.
This will be fun.
-m
-
In theory you could get two snowflakes exactly alike. The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero. Snowflake shapes vary greatly on their environment, there are almost infinite different shapes. Its the same reason jewels are so prized because chances are you will never find one "exactly" the same. Big deal.
Har.
You are implying that snowflakes are irreducibly complex.
:p
Whereas living organisms are not; they evolved multiple times. You are saying that nonliving snowflakes are more complex than living organisms. Thanks for falling into my nice little trap.
What on earth are you talking about?! I didnt say that at all. Sorry if we didnt say what you wanted us to say, but you cant just pretend we did anyway just because you didnt get what you wanted. :rolleyes:
...Of course, you will probably come up with a nice "You can't prove that no two snowflakes are alike!!" but until you show me two that are....
You didnt read a word of what people said, did you?
You could find two snowflakes the same, but we probably wont because theres so many variables involved in how the structure forms.
Its like rolling dice. Lets say you roll 6 dice and note down what each of them says. Now roll the same 6 dice again. Chances of having the exact outcome again is much lower. Now pretend you have thousands of dice, and the object of the game is not only to get each one to get the same result as they did before but to land in the exact same place as they did before. Chances of that happening are almost impossible. This is what its like for snowflake formation. IE. The chances of two snowflakes having the same exact molecular structure are almost nill. Theres nothing mystical or supernatural about it. Its just the environment and atmosphere acting on the crystallizing ice.
I will sit back and laugh at you people who believe in spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis and irreducibly complex snowflakes
Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. It is absolutely nothing like it.
Ed
-
Of course, you will probably come up with a nice "You can't prove that no two snowflakes are alike!!" but until you show me two that are, I will sit back and laugh at you people who believe in spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis and irreducibly complex snowflakes.
Finally. I was waiting for you to post exactly that. You go on about aldo and ed falling into a trap, but in fact you're the one who just walked headlong into one.
I actually don't give a damn about whether two identical snowflakes have ever existed or not; I wanted you to say exactly that because it makes perfect sense - It can't be proven and has never been observed, and as such it's silly to believe it until some kind of proof surfaces. The thing is though, if you replace "snowflake" with "god", you have exactly the same situation. It can't be proven and has never been observed, so by your own admission, believing in it is ridiculous. Thank you for cooperating, and indeed doing so far better than I could have wished for when I first planned this little trap :)
-
Har.
You are implying that snowflakes are irreducibly complex.
:p
do you know what the term irriducably complex means?
-
Obviously not or he wouldn't dream of suggesting that someone arguing against ID ever said it.
I think we've proved time and time again that the people who argue against ID actually understand what it is better than anyone on this board who has argued in favour of it.
-
Har.
You are implying that snowflakes are irreducibly complex.
:p
Whereas living organisms are not; they evolved multiple times. You are saying that nonliving snowflakes are more complex than living organisms. Thanks for falling into my nice little trap.
...Of course, you will probably come up with a nice "You can't prove that no two snowflakes are alike!!" but until you show me two that are, I will sit back and laugh at you people who believe in spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis and irreducibly complex snowflakes.
This will be fun.
-m
Didn't I just explain how snowflakes aren't irreducibly complex but the consequence of multiple (relatively simple) small formative actions chained together via crystallisation processes, with sufficient random variation to -potentially- give an appearance of unique spontaneous complexity? Ah, yes, I did. In fact, you've managed to completely ignore what both of us said! Kudos, such deliberate and calculated ignorance is truly had to find in modern society.
Oh, yeah, and abiogenesis isn't spontaneous but a chained theory of sequential events. We did that bit of explanation earlier.
Perhaps you'd like to (go back and) read it this time before you sound any more of a a complete idiot? honestly, I hope you're not representative of the educational system of your country of origin.
-
In fact, you've managed to completely ignore what both of us said! Kudos, such deliberate and calculated ignorance is truly hard to find in modern society.
I dunno, I don't agree with that statement :lol:
-
It's no usually willful & calculated, though :)
-
That's what the government wants you to believe.... ;7
-
*Sigh*
honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them
Commonly known fact; could someone answer my argument here?
PLEEEEEASE? :(
-m
In theory you could get two snowflakes exactly alike. The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero. Snowflake shapes vary greatly on their environment, there are almost infinite different shapes. Its the same reason jewels are so prized because chances are you will never find one "exactly" the same. Big deal.
Exactly... BEcaseu everything in the universe was/is created by God. No snowflake is the same. Sure you might find one with the same amount of snow on it but will it be EXACTLY the same? NO! IT CANNOT!
THey are all made in gods image....
GO ahead, criticize me, see if I care...
-
No god is the same either...
Anyway, god seems to be pretty inefficient. Let's replace Him, with a Her ;)
*reads "And Eternity"*
Anyway, two snowflakes can be the same. It's just improbable. Though with the amount of snowflakes that have fallen...
But asking us to prove that is like us saying "If your god is so powerful, give us a provable demonstration of His Power"
*Reads "Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy"*
*watches TV*
*listens to crickets*
Oh, that's right, you can't... *reads Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy*
-
*Sigh*
honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them
Commonly known fact; could someone answer my argument here?
PLEEEEEASE? :(
-m
In theory you could get two snowflakes exactly alike. The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero. Snowflake shapes vary greatly on their environment, there are almost infinite different shapes. Its the same reason jewels are so prized because chances are you will never find one "exactly" the same. Big deal.
Exactly... BEcaseu everything in the universe was/is created by God. No snowflake is the same. Sure you might find one with the same amount of snow on it but will it be EXACTLY the same? NO! IT CANNOT!
THey are all made in gods image....
GO ahead, criticize me, see if I care...
God is a snowflake?
Sigh.
We did explain this, you know. In depth. The physical laws that define the formation of a snowflake do not preclude it being identical; it is just incredibly unlikely to have any combination of molecules in the universe as being identical. In fact, you quoted the very post explaining this. Randomness is not, may I add, any sort of symptom of divine creation; take a couple of pennies out your pocket, and you will see that each one (or maybe not see, but on a microscopic level) has differences in its surface, etc. The same applies to brand-spanking-new pennies. It also applies to crystals, which we can see form with our own eyes and a loadof patience (using the same principles as snowflake ice crystal formation, IIRC).
Anyways.
The root point is, uniqueness does not require 'God' or any such concept. We can - and have - map the physical processes, test them, and explain the complexity that arises from the combination of these processes.
I could write a 'snowflake' program that uses a series of branching algorithms to draw an increasinly complex pattern, and illustrate exactly how simple changes can add up to a very complex and seemingly unique whole. If I could be arsed, and if I thought you'd understand it one jot. Which, frankly, I don't think you will going by the very post I'm quoting.
(to be fair, your very last sentence indicates you have no interest in learning anything atall, and would rather stick to a preformatted set of dogmatic and rather laughable misconceptions. I might be an aetheist/agnosticist, but I'd have thought understanding nature and the world as it works would be a rather profound and important part of understanding 'gods work' to a Christian, rather than blindly sticking to the words of your local preacher/parent/pastor/whatever)
-
Exactly... BEcaseu everything in the universe was/is created by God. No snowflake is the same. Sure you might find one with the same amount of snow on it but will it be EXACTLY the same? NO! IT CANNOT!
Umm. As he said right in that post, it *can* be. It's just highly unlikely. Learn to read.
-
The same amount of snow on it? :wtf:
Uhh... At that level, do you define the parts of a snowflake as snow?
Must... stop.. arguing... semantics....
Cannot is a strong word there laddie...
Cannot implies certainty, and nothing is certain. (i'm prepared to argue that point)
-
The same amount of snow on it? :wtf:
Uhh... At that level, do you define the parts of a snowflake as snow?
Must... stop.. arguing... semantics....
Cannot is a strong word there laddie...
Cannot implies certainty, and nothing is certain. (i'm prepared to argue that point)
I doubt he actually read anything me or Ed wrote.....
-
What does my post have to do with that?
I'm pretty sure no one read my first post on this thread, but it was illegible too....
Although I agree, it seems everyone just states their positions, and skips anything that is too long, or too complicated, or just not compatible.
-
What does my post have to do with that?
I'm pretty sure no one read my first post on this thread, but it was illegible too....
Although I agree, it seems everyone just states their positions, and skips anything that is too long, or too complicated, or just not compatible.
This bit;
The same amount of snow on it?
Uhh... At that level, do you define the parts of a snowflake as snow?
When we've been talking (prior) about snowflakes forming from ice crystals.
-
Although I agree, it seems everyone just states their positions, and skips anything that is too long, or too complicated, or just not compatible.
Nope. We listen to the points the creationists put across and then refute them (If they make any sense. m seldom has to be honest). If you look back you'll see that we answered all the objections Charismatic raised and showed why he was wrong on the matter.
-
Saying that every snowflake that has ever fallen is individual is a misleading statement anyway, I've seen snowflakes that were visually identical, the difference between them was at the microscopic level.
If you look at sand you'll find that at a microscopic level, despite the basic silicon structure, even sand is unique on a crystal to crystal basis. The whole reason life is based around water, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and silicon (to a degree) is because all these structure have almost infinitely various ways of connecting to each other. Though not truly infinite. It's a very human thing to make statements like 'All snowflakes are different', but the scientist in me always wants to answer with the question 'You've checked them all? Or did a scientist tell you that?'
-
m - nowhere did anyone say that snowflakes are irreducably complex. Also abiogensis is not spontaneous generation.
If you wish to debate, to do honestly and do not mischaracterize the positions of your opponants. If you want to continue to be manipulative and dishonest, go somewhere else.
-
Although I agree, it seems everyone just states their positions, and skips anything that is too long, or too complicated, or just not compatible.
Nope. We listen to the points the creationists put across and then refute them (If they make any sense. m seldom has to be honest). If you look back you'll see that we answered all the objections Charismatic raised and showed why he was wrong on the matter.
But they aren't too complicated, they are refutable, and thus compatible, and they generally aren't too long.
Must... not... mention... was only applying to one side of debate :D
-
Cannot implies certainty, and nothing is certain. (i'm prepared to argue that point)
are you certain about that?
-
Yaay paradox. :p
-
Cannot implies certainty, and nothing is certain. (i'm prepared to argue that point)
are you certain about that?
I'm certain about two things only, Death and taxes! :lol:
-
What in the-!?! :wtf:
Why does no-one understand that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SNOWFLAKES!!!
The "trap" I was referring to is that you people laugh at us creationists for believing that it is mathematically practically impossible for life-forms to evolve at all, much less multiple times, but then you go on to say that
The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero.
So, which is more complex: a snowflake or a living organism?
And before you go on screaming :hopping: "You're missing all the in-between steps!" Take a look at basic probability calculation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability#Probability_in_mathematics).
In case you don't want to read that, it essentially means that while the chances of, say, amino acids forming from chemicals is acceptably high, that probability combined with the probability of an amino acid then becoming a protein, etc, etc, means that the living organism will definitely never evolve. This is because you must multiply all the probabilities of all the steps. (e.g. .25% x .25% = .125% chance)
And BY THE WAY:
Abiogenesis is just spontaneous generation repackaged!!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)
:P
Later,
-m
-
I've posted an explanation of abiogenesis as a sequential event twice, including the odds of that sequence.
If you're not going to bother even reading the answers to your posts, then please kindly **** off and let someone with a semblance of an open mind respond.
Thankyouverymuchandgoodnight.
-
Abiogenesis and evolution are two different things.
Evolution deals with reproduction, variation, and selection which are all irrefutable facts.
Once again the case of "in 1860 they believed in spontaneous generation, modern scientists believe it!" as a logical fallacy appears.
Earlier in this thread there was a wonderful diagram showing the modern conception of it.
aldo_14: Don't give into his ignorance and hatred.
-
I'm sorry, I'm just pissed off that we're having the same disproven arguement not only trotted out, but trotted out with such a paucity of actual 'own words' explanation or information that I actually need to go from memory what that arguement is/was supposed to be. Insofar as it seems as this 'arguement' is cobbled together with the aid of some catchphrases and that the writer lacks to ability or willingness to understand or articulate the arguement, or to understand the disproof of it as was posted twice previously.
I find it very frustrating, because I've been trying to put effort into replying factually with reference and explanation in this thread, and it's becoming self-evident that these responses are not being read and the creationist peeps posting have no interesting in even trying to read them or being open to the actual explanation and scientific theory as opposed to spouting what is in effect dogmatic propaganda.
-
funny you are the one who keeps bringing the snowflake issue back up.
we laugh at your inability to understand how wrong your probability argument is and how you try to equate it with totaly unrelated things, like... snowflakes for instance.
snow flakes are the result of totaly random procesiese, life is the result of an extreemly non-random process known as evolution. the snow flake thing you are trying to find one very specific configuration life you are trying to find any posable configureation, do you see yet why the whole snowflake argument is irrelivent and laughable yet?
-
I'm sorry, I'm just pissed off that we're having the same disproven arguement not only trotted out, but trotted out with such a paucity of actual 'own words' explanation or information that I actually need to go from memory what that arguement is/was supposed to be. Insofar as it seems as this 'arguement' is cobbled together with the aid of some catchphrases and that the writer lacks to ability or willingness to understand or articulate the arguement, or to understand the disproof of it as was posted twice previously.
I find it very frustrating, because I've been trying to put effort into replying factually with reference and explanation in this thread, and it's becoming self-evident that these responses are not being read and the creationist peeps posting have no interesting in even trying to read them or being open to the actual explanation and scientific theory as opposed to spouting what is in effect dogmatic propaganda.
if it makes you feel better that group of people has a birth rate easily five times that of yours.
-
funny you are the one who keeps bringing the snowflake issue back up.
we laugh at your inability to understand how wrong your probability argument is and how you try to equate it with totaly unrelated things, like... snowflakes for instance.
snow flakes are the result of totaly random procesiese, life is the result of an extreemly non-random process known as evolution. the snow flake thing you are trying to find one very specific configuration life you are trying to find any posable configureation, do you see yet why the whole snowflake argument is irrelivent and laughable yet?
*emphasis added*
So you're saying that, whereas, evolution is controlled by the laws of nature, snowflakes aren't, right? Please explain how you're not saying that. How the heck am I supposed to see that snowflakes are "random" -- doesn't it ever occur to you, that by either yours or my definition of how the universe operates, nothing is "random"? They (everything) obeys the same laws, thus nothing is truly "random", unless by "random", you mean "without cause" in which case, both life and snowflakes, according to that definition, and given a non-religious worldview, are random. If you mean random, as in not following any particular set of rules in its operation, then I'm sorry, you're wrong. If you could control every possible variable of a snowflake's environment, and do it twice, I believe you would have identical snowflakes. The fact that you can't is just because of the almost infinite variables involved... which, until evolutionists can prove that alternate forms of life can exist, (not being somewhat like life as we know it) then those odds work against evolution, because the chances of everything going wrong are infinitely (almost) more than those of it going right an (almost) infinite number of times.
Oh, and the graphic you referred to: (I think)
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif)
The chances of the right-hand column, given a 1/2 chance for each of the six steps, would be 1/64. But, if a creationist tries to say that the chances of simple chemicals forming into bacteria are 1/64, you guys would say he's not taking into account the other steps... but he is! What gives??
if it makes you feel better that group of people has a birth rate easily five times that of yours.
Oh, that does kind of feel nice... I'm sure it wouldn't on the other end of the argument, though... but I'm sure this issue will be debated for as long as people aren't willing to take the risk of being proven wrong and actually think the issue through... which I of course haven't thought the issue through all the way, it's much too complex, I imagine in a few years or so I'll be able to say I've studied evolution and found it lacking, but since no one person can ever research everything on either side of this issue, you have to rely on the honesty of others... which is rather dangerous. Of course, the only one Person I could absolutely trust would be God... but you wouldn't understand that. (Yet ;) )
*can just hear the frantic whispered remarks about radical, fundamentalist jr2* :lol: Whatever.
-
Wow, this topic has rarely, if ever, left the first page in Hard Light for five months.
-
They (everything) obeys the same laws, thus nothing is truly "random", unless by "random", you mean "without cause" in which case, both life and snowflakes, according to that definition, and given a non-religious worldview, are random. If you mean random, as in not following any particular set of rules in its operation, then I'm sorry, you're wrong. If you could control every possible variable of a snowflake's environment, and do it twice, I believe you would have identical snowflakes.
Actually, the universe is not deterministic as you'd like to think. It's not possible to determine exactly how objects in this universe will behave based on measurement. Therefore, at a very fundamental level, you could think of the universe as very random. Given data about a specific object, it's only possible to produce a probabilistic model of how it will behave. This is how our model of the atom works. Electrons have a probability of existing in certain orbitals around the nucleus and we cannot determine the exact position of a given electron at a given time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_interpretation_of_classical_physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
Since you took a discussion about biology and somehow twisted it into a discussion about your bull**** version of probability theory applied to... err... snowflakes, I thought I'd take a stab at your inanity from a physics point of view. :p
-
Oh, that does kind of feel nice... I'm sure it wouldn't on the other end of the argument, though... but I'm sure this issue will be debated for as long as people aren't willing to take the risk of being proven wrong and actually think the issue through... which I of course haven't thought the issue through all the way, it's much too complex, I imagine in a few years or so I'll be able to say I've studied evolution and found it lacking, but since no one person can ever research everything on either side of this issue, you have to rely on the honesty of others... which is rather dangerous. Of course, the only one Person I could absolutely trust would be God... but you wouldn't understand that. (Yet ;) )
*can just hear the frantic whispered remarks about radical, fundamentalist jr2* :lol: Whatever.
By going into the issue with a predisposed concept (the statement that you'd find evolution lacking) you defeat the purpose of objectivity which is necessary.
Similarly, as pointed out and proven in this thread on multiple occassions the side of the debate where people are taking the risk of being wrong are the scientists. There's been a lot of ideas over the years that have been debunked based on observations, and others that have held up quite well.
But the truth is, let's call this entire debate for what it is. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the fruits of scientific knowledge, but you aren't willing to accept the universe that it shows you. Instead you want a neatly packaged universe where you and your actions feel significant to a greater scheme. God isn't love, god is vanity.
-
it's much too complex, I imagine in a few years or so I'll be able to say I've studied evolution and found it lacking, but since no one person can ever research everything on either side of this issue, you have to rely on the honesty of others...
Either side? Seems to me that only one side of this debate is being presented anyway. I have yet to see any evidence of Creationism or Intelligent Design (presumably because there is none) from any of the evolution detractors in this thread. Why is this? Trying to poke holes in evolution isn't presenting your side of the issue. Do you have a reasonable alternative to evolution that can be backed up by scientific evidence?
-
exactly
creationists talk and talk and talk but all they say is your wrong i'm right no explanation
-
Why does no-one understand that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SNOWFLAKES!!!
Perhaps cause you were so busy patting yourself on the back at your perceived cleverness that you forgot to actually make your point in a clear and understandable fashion?
The "trap" I was referring to is that you people laugh at us creationists for believing that it is mathematically practically impossible for life-forms to evolve at all, much less multiple times, but then you go on to say that
The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero.
So, which is more complex: a snowflake or a living organism?
That's not a trap. You've made a couple of significant errors in your logic. One of which has been explained several times and repeatedly ignored by you.
Suppose I was to get 6 decks of cards, shuffle them and deal out the cards to 6 players. Now calculate the probablility that they would end up holding the particular hand of cards they hold. It's astronomical. But ask yourself one thing. What is the probability that each player will hold 52 cards at the end? Well that's 1 in 1 (barring any errors on the dealers part).
So as you can see the probability is only high when you take a specific outcome and ask what is the probability of that outcome occuring. And that is exactly the same logical flaw you're making. You're assuming you need amino acids and all the other stuff for life to exist. You completely fail to consider that life could have evolved from other basic building blocks.
The second logical fallacy you've made is assuming that there is only once place in the entire universe that this can have occured. Our own solar system has at least two other good canidates for abiogenesis to have occured, Mars and Europa. How many countless others are there in the universe? Even if your earlier fallacy didn't exist and I believed you that life was a 1 in 1 trillion chance what would that mean if there were 10 trillion planets where it could occur? Well in that case it would mean that it had happened around 10 times. Creationists like to act as if Earth is somehow a special variable that must be added in but it really isn't.
So in other words your entire probabilty argument is a house of cards that relies on the twin assumptions that you are only talking about Earth and only talking about humans evolving as if those two are the only possibilities.
It's an especially stupid argument when you consider that the chance of you existing even if you believe in God is similarly improbable. You only exist because of one out of 200 million sperm made it. But your dad only exists because one of 200 million sperm made it... etc
If inprobability was the only yardstick as to whether something is possible then you are not possible either. Of course the reason that argument fails is the same as with evolution. If your sperm didn't make it one of the other ones probably would have.
-
funny you are the one who keeps bringing the snowflake issue back up.
we laugh at your inability to understand how wrong your probability argument is and how you try to equate it with totaly unrelated things, like... snowflakes for instance.
snow flakes are the result of totaly random procesiese, life is the result of an extreemly non-random process known as evolution. the snow flake thing you are trying to find one very specific configuration life you are trying to find any posable configureation, do you see yet why the whole snowflake argument is irrelivent and laughable yet?
*emphasis added*
So you're saying that, whereas, evolution is controlled by the laws of nature, snowflakes aren't, right? Please explain how you're not saying that. How the heck am I supposed to see that snowflakes are "random" -- doesn't it ever occur to you, that by either yours or my definition of how the universe operates, nothing is "random"? They (everything) obeys the same laws, thus nothing is truly "random", unless by "random", you mean "without cause" in which case, both life and snowflakes, according to that definition, and given a non-religious worldview, are random. If you mean random, as in not following any particular set of rules in its operation, then I'm sorry, you're wrong. If you could control every possible variable of a snowflake's environment, and do it twice, I believe you would have identical snowflakes. The fact that you can't is just because of the almost infinite variables involved... which, until evolutionists can prove that alternate forms of life can exist, (not being somewhat like life as we know it) then those odds work against evolution, because the chances of everything going wrong are infinitely (almost) more than those of it going right an (almost) infinite number of times.
Oh, and the graphic you referred to: (I think)
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif)
The chances of the right-hand column, given a 1/2 chance for each of the six steps, would be 1/64. But, if a creationist tries to say that the chances of simple chemicals forming into bacteria are 1/64, you guys would say he's not taking into account the other steps... but he is! What gives??
if it makes you feel better that group of people has a birth rate easily five times that of yours.
Oh, that does kind of feel nice... I'm sure it wouldn't on the other end of the argument, though... but I'm sure this issue will be debated for as long as people aren't willing to take the risk of being proven wrong and actually think the issue through... which I of course haven't thought the issue through all the way, it's much too complex, I imagine in a few years or so I'll be able to say I've studied evolution and found it lacking, but since no one person can ever research everything on either side of this issue, you have to rely on the honesty of others... which is rather dangerous. Of course, the only one Person I could absolutely trust would be God... but you wouldn't understand that. (Yet ;) )
*can just hear the frantic whispered remarks about radical, fundamentalist jr2* :lol: Whatever.
The graphic that page originates from actually explains the odds of each step (incidentally, it's worth doubly emphasising that the probability is increased because it's gradually increasing complexity rather than a 'jump') and answers - disproves - what you just said. Can you possibly consider reading the page next time? Against my better judgement, here's the link to it for the third time;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
(This is why I get annoyed at no-one reading these things; you even take the graphic and fail to read the page! what is wrong with you people? Seriously, explain it to me; why do you not read these things?)
-
ok, by random, I mean there is no systematic sort of process going on as to the variables that would lead to the formation of a flake, while the rules that lead to the flake's form are not random, the input of the system is random, and there is no corective system in place that whould serve to de-randomize it, the form of a snow flake is within the limitations of ice crystals totaly random.
life on the other hand has a recersive corecton process in place that insures only the best organisms survive to the next generation. it's a much more complex system, with a lot more posable outcomes, but also much more predictable, because it isn't totaly random.
-
The fact that you can't is just because of the almost infinite variables involved... which, until evolutionists can prove that alternate forms of life can exist, (not being somewhat like life as we know it) then those odds work against evolution, because the chances of everything going wrong are infinitely (almost) more than those of it going right an (almost) infinite number of times.
...
The chances of the right-hand column, given a 1/2 chance for each of the six steps, would be 1/64. But, if a creationist tries to say that the chances of simple chemicals forming into bacteria are 1/64, you guys would say he's not taking into account the other steps... but he is! What gives??
What are the chances of God?
-
What in the-!?! :wtf:
Why does no-one understand that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SNOWFLAKES!!!
Because you are so astonishingly bad at making your point perhaps.
The "trap" I was referring to is that you people laugh at us creationists for believing that it is mathematically practically impossible for life-forms to evolve at all, much less multiple times, but then you go on to say that
The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero.
So, which is more complex: a snowflake or a living organism?
You know when I wrote that I wondered if you would totally misunderstand.
Please read this very carefully. Under normal conditions the chances of two snowflakes having the same exact molecular structure as another is almost zero, but the chances of A snowflake forming is VERY LIKELY. Can you honestly not see the difference?
You can make your own homemade ice crystals.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/project/project.htm
You can make your own sugar crystals:
http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/canopy/2525/crystals/
You can watch these crystals grow right in front of you. Now please try and understand the following because it applies both to snowflakes and to your terrible argument....
If you perform these experiments....
.... the chances of A crystal forming is VERY LIKELY.
.... BUT the chances of repeating the experiment and getting a crystal that is exactly the same is almost ZERO.
Cant you see the difference?
In case you don't want to read that, it essentially means that while the chances of, say, amino acids forming from chemicals is acceptably high,
Yet the organic amino acids have been shown to form (like ice crystals) consistently in experiments for many years now. What we know is that these organic amino acids will form given the right circumstances.
that probability combined with the probability of an amino acid then becoming a protein, etc, etc, means that the living organism will definitely never evolve.
Once again, abiogeneiss has practically nothing to do with evolution theory in the same way as atomic theory has nothing to do with the Big Bang. You guys say that Evolution is flawed because you need life to begin with, but thats the same thing with atomic theory not caring where atoms come from or how Pasteurs Germ theory doesnt address where microbes come from.
This is because you must multiply all the probabilities of all the steps. (e.g. .25% x .25% = .125% chance)
You dont know anything about abiogenesis to state its a mathematical impossibilty. You cant even understand the ridiculousness of this snowflake nonsence you brought up.
And BY THE WAY:
Abiogenesis is just spontaneous generation repackaged!!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)
No it isnt. While that article has inappropriately called abiogenesis spontaneous generation, it still makes the dictinction between Pasteus work and modern abiogenesis which they recognise as very different. Spontaneus Generation and abiogenesis are totally different things, as long as you continue to pretend otherwise it only shows how vacuous your position is.
-
m listen very carefully
you don't know what the **** you're talking about when it comes to real world probabilties, we do.
in all probability (pun intented) you almost certainly don't know the difference between sequential and parellel trials of probabilties, or the first damn thing about the LAW OF EXTREMELY LARGE NUMBERS
Say the probability of random event occuring is 1/x - and there are y "chances" for this event to occur every 1 second - the mean time to occurance is x/y seconds.
wrap your brain around that for a bit
-
I'm surrounded by professors of debate.
This thread must push 1000,
-
oh, don't worry it'll start back up a month from now with m or jr2 talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
-
oh, don't worry it'll start back up a month from now with m or jr2 talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Are you absolutly sure?
Remember, we must not let this thread die; protect it at all costs!!!!!!!!
-
I hereby dub you Gibson.
Or was it Sarno?
-
i can always drag in more wannabe intellectual noobs. i live in the South. we got tons of em here.
-
i can always drag in more wannabe intellectual noobs. i live in the South. we got tons of em here.
You're welcome to do so.
-
I stand by my platypus point, What does it fit in as, Its a mammal, but it has a Beak..............FREAK !
Either Evolution was fuxxed with by a mad aboriganl scientist, or god threw the leftover bits into a washing machine whilest drunk.
-
I stand by my platypus point, What does it fit in as, Its a mammal, but it has a Beak..............FREAK !
Either Evolution was fuxxed with by a mad aboriganl scientist, or god threw the leftover bits into a washing machine whilest drunk.
It doesn't have a beak.
A beak is solid bone (extension of the jaw covered in skin/blood vessels on the exterior), the platypus snout is a soft flexible organ which does not 'split' like a beak.
-
It will if i get my hands on one of the sods.........
;7
So about evolution, on a philosophical level, If by creatign life and manipulating makes you a god, And science at this point in our developement can (through IVF etc) create life. Does that make us gods, or god a scientist???
-
It will if i get my hands on one of the sods.........
;7
So about evolution, on a philosophical level, If by creatign life and manipulating makes you a god, And science at this point in our developement can (through IVF etc) create life. Does that make us gods, or god a scientist???
We're not creating life, we're only facilitating the 'creation' process; i.e. existing mechanics of reproduction (all we're doing is taking it outside the body temporarily).
Actually creating life would involve repeating the process of abiogenesis.
-
I did that twice this morning.........before breakfast :nervous:
Genetic manipulation is getting closer and closer, I forget the dna % difference between us and primates, but as soon as we "improve" humanity by a small percentage, Are we not effectively creating new life?
-
I did that twice this morning.........before breakfast :nervous:
Genetic manipulation is getting closer and closer, I forget the dna % difference between us and primates, but as soon as we "improve" humanity by a small percentage, Are we not effectively creating new life?
Not any more than by cross-breeding dogs (for example).
-
8 legged napalm breathing dogs? give it a few years............. :nod:
-
I stand by my platypus point, What does it fit in as, Its a mammal, but it has a Beak..............FREAK !
Either Evolution was fuxxed with by a mad aboriganl scientist, or god threw the leftover bits into a washing machine whilest drunk.
Like Aldo said, it doesnt have a beak (or at least its nothing like a ducks). It also doesnt lay eggs like a bird, the eggs are very different. From what I know there were about 5 different lineages of mammals evolving from therapsid reptiles, the Platypus is the egg laying kind whos lineage has died out.
-
It hasnt though,, Platypi are still alive :rolleyes: i see your point though.......
-
It hasnt though,, Platypi are still alive :rolleyes: i see your point though.......
hehe. What I meant was theres lots of different species of marsupials for example but the Platypus is the only egg laying mammal of its lineage left today.
-
It will if i get my hands on one of the sods.........
Bear in mind that the Platypus is venomous. Probably a defence mechanism cause it was teased by all the other mammals :D
-
I'll wear my
gimp ninja outfit, and Hiyaaa it in the nose/beak.......
If i remember correctly from my Taz cartoons, They are also genius level inventors.....So i'd better watch out.