Evolution vs. Creation [Archive] - Page 7 - Literature Network Forums

Redzeppelin

03-19-2007, 12:49 AM

I hope you are referring to men. It's editor...well the government. There's nothing to refute here. God gave man freewill, so what makes you think man can't use his freewill to distort the bible as he pleases?

God is the "author" - everything in there was inspired by Him. Because God is all-powerful, there's a slight chance that He has the ability to inspire good men to guard the integrity of His revelation of His identity. Easy for a Guy who created the world in six days, don't you think?

Yes, scholars who have a biased opinion on the subject. Asking a "god believing" scholar to verify the bible is like asking a government to verify its war.

1) This argument also works against any conclusions you draw from scientists who assert the truth of evolution - they're biased too.
2) Biblical scholars use tools that are acknowledged in the secular community as well. Here:

Homer's Illiad is considered to have the greatest manuscript authority next to the New Testament; Homer wrote the Illiad around 900 BC and the oldest copy is from 400 BC - a 500 year span. The total number of manuscripts is 643 and the readings agree 95% of the time.

In contrast, there are approximately 5300 original language manuscripts of New Testament writings spanning 50 years - AD 70 to AD 120. These documents agree with each other 99.5% of the time in terms of language and content. It requires no bias to come to this kind of linguistic conclusion - you simply compare what all the manuscripts say.

I've read so much about scholars who are finding out that the books in the bible were actually written by many men and not the original writers. Yet, every time I mention this you guys comeback with the same comment..."god inspired the men to do it". If there was divine intervention, then that would mean man lost his freewill in that particular situation. If man loses his freewill to write what he pleases then he contradicts Christian foundations, proving a slave-master morality. God influencing man to do something is not "freewill", yet you Christians continue to mention it on this forum. enlighten me.

God didn't "make" people write the Bible - He inspired willing believers to put down what He wanted put down. "Influence" is not "coerce." These writers wanted to be servants - "tools" if you will - of God; allowing Him to pass His thoughts through us is an honor - not a violation of our freedom. Your understanding of freewill in this situation is incorrect.

Adudaewen

03-19-2007, 12:59 AM

If there was divine intervention, then that would mean man lost his freewill in that particular situation. If man loses his freewill to write what he pleases then he contradicts Christian foundations, proving a slave-master morality. God influencing man to do something is not "freewill", yet you Christians continue to mention it on this forum. enlighten me.

Does a secretary lose her/his free will when (s)he dictates a letter for her/his boss? Inspiration and slavery aren't the same thing.

Matrim Cuathon

03-19-2007, 06:23 AM

It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing - which is what evolution (sans God) must finally assert. Matter cannot come from nothing. Pursued to its logical conclusion, evolution must explain the existence of matter. To say that it has "always existed" is to give an answer that really answers nothing because it asserts a reality that cannot be explained, nor can it be proven (kind of like God -:) ).

actually physics does not assert this. science does not know where it matter came from. but there are some theories you can check out. some of the stuff is really bizarre.

atiguhya padma

03-19-2007, 07:23 AM

<It does seem crazy to the Christian to assert that something came out of nothing>

And yet, it doesn't seem crazy to assert that something, a causeless something, was always there?

From what I remember of reading books on the big bang, I always thought that the claim was that time began with the big bang, and that the question of what happened before is therefore a meaningless question. To say that it is claimed that nothing preceded the big bang is incorrect, afaik, as it is said that a field of potential preceded the big bang.

hyperborean

03-19-2007, 01:25 PM

Does a secretary lose her/his free will when (s)he dictates a letter for her/his boss? Inspiration and slavery aren't the same thing.

But absolute freewill is lost. Divine inspiration...God inspiring particular men in order to carry out his will and write his book is loss of freewill. The men who were inspired by God to write the bible did not have total control over their actions.

Redzeppelin

03-19-2007, 05:07 PM

But absolute freewill is lost. Divine inspiration...God inspiring particular men in order to carry out his will and write his book is loss of freewill. The men who were inspired by God to write the bible did not have total control over their actions.

Yes they did: to willingly chose to follow another's request is a voluntary placing of one's own will under the authority of another - as such, it is FREELY chosen; for every man/woman who chose to serve God, I suggest that many others declined the invitation. God generally doesn't ask for unwilling servants. (The story of Johah is a bit troubling, but I think there's a reason for that too.)

actually physics does not assert this. science does not know where it matter came from. but there are some theories you can check out. some of the stuff is really bizarre.

But science must assert this in order for its God-less view of evolution to work. Matter exists, and it cannot be conveniently explained away (at least by rational people).

Matrim Cuathon

03-19-2007, 05:38 PM

it doesnt have to. science does not claim to have all the answers. it might decide on a theory or it might not. evolution isnt bothered with matter anyway. it describes how life evolves and grows.

hyperborean

03-19-2007, 05:40 PM

Yes they did: to willingly chose to follow another's request is a voluntary placing of one's own will under the authority of another - as such, it is FREELY chosen;

No, I'm talking about the people that filtered, edited, and changed the bible according to their liking; the politicians in ancient times (like Constantine) who changed the bible into what it is today. You claimed earlier that God inspired those men. I don't remember guys like Constantine having actual conversations with God about writing the bible. You did say they were "inspired to write and edit", and all this talk of alterations is "silly" because mr. ruler of the universe has everything planned out. Well if most of the guys that wrote the bible never had conversations with God (like moses did) then it's not freewill to abide by God's wishes (because God never actually said anything to them).

The impression you gave off was that even if the writers weren't told to write the bible by God, they were spiritually inspired to do so without knowing they were spiritually inspired. That wouldn't be freewill, now would it?

Redzeppelin

03-19-2007, 05:50 PM

No, I'm talking about the people that filtered, edited, and changed the bible according to their liking; the politicians in ancient times (like Constantine) who changed the bible into what it is today. You claimed earlier that God inspired those men. I don't remember guys like Constantine having actual conversations with God about writing the bible. You did say they were "inspired to write and edit", and all this talk of alterations is "silly" because mr. ruler of the universe has everything planned out. Well if most of the guys that wrote the bible never had conversations with God (like moses did) then it's not freewill to abide by God's wishes (because God never actually said anything to them).

The impression you gave off was that even if the writers weren't told to write the bible by God, they were spiritually inspired to do so without knowing so. That wouldn't be freewill.

God has always had loyal servants - and He has entrusted them to guard His Word. Any being capable of creating the universe could assure that His Holy Word made it through various translators and editors intact. In general, people who translated/copied the scriptures did so out of a sense of service to the Lord: people hostile to the scriptures were not interested in working with them. You ignored my posting with the percentages of reliabilty attributed to the New Testament (I can provide similar figures for the Old Testament). Based on the tools used to assess the reliabilty of ancient writings, the New Testament has the highest reliability in terms of the texts agreeing with each other.

it doesnt have to. science does not claim to have all the answers. it might decide on a theory or it might not. evolution isnt bothered with matter anyway. it describes how life evolves and grows.

It has to bother with matter because the elimination of God from the explanation of the universe necessitates an explanation as to where matter came from. And science will probably have to resort to an explanation as silly and inconceivable to the Christian as the idea of a Supreme Being must be to them.

hyperborean

03-19-2007, 07:44 PM

You ignored my posting with the percentages of reliabilty attributed to the New Testament (I can provide similar figures for the Old Testament). Based on the tools used to assess the reliabilty of ancient writings, the New Testament has the highest reliability in terms of the texts agreeing with each other.

You laugh when evolutionists bring up statistics, yet you post statistics on the validity of the bible. I've read and seen too much to believe that the bible is as valid as you claim.

At this point of the argument it's pretty pointless to continue. No matter what direction you go in, a Christian will use his faith to tackle a debate. It goes like this:

evolutionist: scientific fact
creationist: science can't be trusted

evolutionist: yes it can
creationist: straw man

evolutionist: attack on christianity
creationist: faith, God is almighty, I win.

:p

Redzeppelin

03-20-2007, 12:04 AM

You laugh when evolutionists bring up statistics, yet you post statistics on the validity of the bible. I've read and seen too much to believe that the bible is as valid as you claim.

At this point of the argument it's pretty pointless to continue. No matter what direction you go in, a Christian will use his faith to tackle a debate. It goes like this:

evolutionist: scientific fact
creationist: science can't be trusted

evolutionist: yes it can
creationist: straw man

evolutionist: attack on christianity
creationist: faith, God is almighty, I win.

:p

Nobody has quoted scientific statistics for me that I can recall. Why don't you hunt down all the times someone (you maybe?) has tried to offer statistics and I've "laughed" at them, OK?

Second - you ignored my information. You and the other evolutionists manage to scoff away at "faith" saying that we have no empirical evidence, and then when I offer you something you won't deal with it. Nice. Deal with my postings. Those numbers aren't my claims - they are from studies done on textual reliability.

Third: how many times are you going to claim that the argument is pointless to continue in and then keep right on posting away? If you're done, fine: be done and let someone else take your place who will do more than argue in a circle without dealing with the argument at hand.

The Atheist

03-20-2007, 12:05 AM

Adudaewen

03-20-2007, 12:28 AM

But absolute freewill is lost. Divine inspiration...God inspiring particular men in order to carry out his will and write his book is loss of freewill. The men who were inspired by God to write the bible did not have total control over their actions.

I'll remember never to ask you to write anything down for me since you consider that such a violation of your free will.
To me, it is just silly to say that inspiration is the same as a loss of free will. Now, if God held a gun to their heads, then I might agree with you. But as far as I know God doesn't have a gun license. ;) (doesn't really need one)

Wintermute

03-20-2007, 08:14 AM

I'll remember never to ask you to write anything down for me since you consider that such a violation of your free will.
To me, it is just silly to say that inspiration is the same as a loss of free will. Now, if God held a gun to their heads, then I might agree with you. But as far as I know God doesn't have a gun license. ;) (doesn't really need one)

Howdy Adu,

Your last sentence, particularly the part in parentheses, proves hyper's point in my opinion. Why use a gun when you're omnipotent, omnicient, and eternal? Didn't the Christian god know it was going to eventually have to send its human form to earth to get nailed to the cross--even before it created the world?

Redzeppelin

03-20-2007, 12:40 PM

Interesting poll.

I'm guessing by the almost 50% seeing creation that most posters are from USA? Amazing how many people have trouble separating fact (evolution) from fantasy (creation).

As an atheist, I have no problem with religion - live and let live is my motto - but creationism flies in the face of too many facts to be treated seriously.

Your assertion that creation if "fantasy" expresses an opinion and nothing else but - an opinion you cannot substantiate. Feel free to give examples of what "facts" creation "flies in the face of" so I can seriously consider them; then I'll throw out at you some of the sheer absurdities that science requires me to accept to explain reality without the causal agent of God. The only "fantasy" being entertained here IMO is the idea that we're the products of random, faceless chance - the odds of which occurring are so astronomical as to approach zero probability.

hyperborean

03-20-2007, 01:41 PM

Your assertion that creation if "fantasy" expresses an opinion and nothing else but

Creation is not physical, and we live in a physical realm. Creation is fantasy...it's imagined.

Redzeppelin

03-20-2007, 01:56 PM

Creation is not physical, and we live in a physical realm. Creation is fantasy...it's imagined.

Why do you force me to repeat to you what I just told another poster? Re-read my post above and pretend its addressed to you, because you basically said the same thing The Atheist said. How about adding something new?

Adudaewen

03-21-2007, 12:18 AM

Howdy Adu,

Your last sentence, particularly the part in parentheses, proves hyper's point in my opinion. Why use a gun when you're omnipotent, omnicient, and eternal? Didn't the Christian god know it was going to eventually have to send its human form to earth to get nailed to the cross--even before it created the world?

I'm sure you got my sarcasm, but just to clarify that my sentence was meant very glibly. ;)

How I understand God is that He gave us free will, so yes, I do believe He did know what could eventually happen. It was up to the decisions of Adam and Eve and all other offspring how it would all play out. He knows all roads, but it is up to us which road we take. That is my understanding of it.

Matrim Cuathon

03-21-2007, 06:17 AM

the odds are not astronimical. you are looking at it the wrong way. tell me all the odds that you think add up to an astronomical chance.

Wintermute

03-21-2007, 08:41 AM

I'm sure you got my sarcasm, but just to clarify that my sentence was meant very glibly. ;)

How I understand God is that He gave us free will, so yes, I do believe He did know what could eventually happen. It was up to the decisions of Adam and Eve and all other offspring how it would all play out. He knows all roads, but it is up to us which road we take. That is my understanding of it.

Good Morning Adudaewen,

So, It (He) didn't know that Eve would take a bite of the apple? He (It) didn't know that it would be necessary to flood the entire world, killing an uncountable number of presumably innocent babies? He doesn't know whether I will eventually wind up in heaven or hell? I thought that was the definition of omicient. It's precisely these kinds of questions that keep me up here on the fence. In my 50 years on this planet, I've discussed this idea of 'free will' combined with an omncient creator on countless occasions with (mainly) Christians. I've yet to understand the reasoning. Perhaps I'm just doomed to a life of uncertainty :)

hyperborean

03-21-2007, 12:57 PM

Why do you force me to repeat to you what I just told another poster? Re-read my post above and pretend its addressed to you, because you basically said the same thing The Atheist said. How about adding something new?

I repeat what is right. You can squirm around the truth as much as you want. Heaven and God are imaginary...they are imagined by man. We don't really know if it exists; faith tells us that it's there.

B-Mental

03-21-2007, 01:06 PM

Hmm, there are some people here that haven't figured out...you aren't changing either of your opinions, and keep going around in circles. Rationality and debate don't exist on this thread. Hyp and RZ, should just agree to disagree. You both seem to have a love/hate relationship. Its almost as if this thread stays alive because you bicker...just my opinion.

Adudaewen

03-21-2007, 02:14 PM

Good Morning Adudaewen,

So, It (He) didn't know that Eve would take a bite of the apple? He (It) didn't know that it would be necessary to flood the entire world, killing an uncountable number of presumably innocent babies? He doesn't know whether I will eventually wind up in heaven or hell? I thought that was the definition of omicient. It's precisely these kinds of questions that keep me up here on the fence. In my 50 years on this planet, I've discussed this idea of 'free will' combined with an omncient creator on countless occasions with (mainly) Christians. I've yet to understand the reasoning. Perhaps I'm just doomed to a life of uncertainty :)

Actually that is not my meaning at all. I posted "He knows all roads, but it is up to us which road we take." That's where free will comes into play. He knows all the paths we can take through our lives, He knows the outcomes of each. So, yes He did know all of those things, and does. Re-read my post, and I hope you'll better understand my meaning.

Wintermute

03-21-2007, 04:05 PM

Actually that is not my meaning at all. I posted "He knows all roads, but it is up to us which road we take." That's where free will comes into play. He knows all the paths we can take through our lives, He knows the outcomes of each. So, yes He did know all of those things, and does. Re-read my post, and I hope you'll better understand my meaning.

Hey Adu,

No, I understand your meaning, and appreciate it. It just doesn't make sense to me. Why slaughter all those innocent babies when you already know you're gonna need to do it? Why not just start the universe from that point? Why force folks to go through all the pain and agony if you already know what the end result will be? I'd like to believe that if a universal creator exists, that it is nicer than the one we've been talking about--I sure hope so anyway.

Adudaewen

03-21-2007, 05:05 PM

I certainly understand your point of view. I don't pretend to understand everything that has happened, nor do I have a crystal clear understanding of why God has done some of the things that He has done.
However, if you really break it down, the suffering and agony of humanity has been caused directly by humanity. Blaming God is a pretty understandable human reaction to the horrors and tragedy of the world. However, hate and fear, pain and suffering, all of these things are direct byproducts of sin.
I don't think that it is unreasonable for God to ask us to follow Him. All of the commandments He has given us keep us safe, allow us to live a good, full, productive life filled with love from Him and others. People in general have a habit of wanting do to whatever they want whenever they want it, and then complain about the consequences. If we just realize that everything we do is intimately connected with every other living being on this earth, we may start to rethink our desires. Sure, in theory, it would be great to just go out and drink and drug and have sex whenever the desire strikes us, and eat ourselves stupid, kill whoever annoys us and take whatever we want whether it belongs to someone else or not, but that doesn't really sound like a world I want to live in. I would rather live in a world guided by God than by man. As a species, we really don't make the best choices.
Along with free will comes responsibility. If we deny that responsibility, or abuse it, it leads to pain, loss and suffering.
The idea of a God that expects us to show responsibility, empathy, and love doesn't sound so bad to me.

Redzeppelin

03-21-2007, 06:08 PM

the odds are not astronimical. you are looking at it the wrong way. tell me all the odds that you think add up to an astronomical chance.

In The Creator and the Cosmos, astrophysicist Hugh
Ross lists 25 parameters that must each fall within a very narrow range in order to make life possible (I have not time to list them all here); as well, Ross has a list of 32 other specific parameters that deal with out sun-moon-planet system. All of these parameters cannot exceed certain narrow limits if life is to be possible. Please tell me what you think the odds are that all these parameters happen to coincide and be just within the proper limits?

Matrim Cuathon

03-21-2007, 06:16 PM

the universe has hundreds of billions of chances. there are theoretically at least

4x10^22 stars in the universe. (i think i got the notation right anyhow.)

Lustandwine

03-21-2007, 08:18 PM

Redzeppelin

03-22-2007, 01:17 AM

The unfortunate thing about probabilety is that, they cant be used to deny things. if there is a chance, it could have happened, if it could have happend in an Einstinian infinite universe it probably has happend somewere and hear could be that somewhere.

So then why don't you tell me what the odds are that God exists/doesn't exist, so I can quote your statement above right back to you - since the same argument that allows the astronomical odds of big-bang/evolution should be comparable to the odds that a Divine Being exists.

where as creation has no basis in epirical fact only in the bible and the harts of beleavers.

Yes, let's talk "empirical facts," shall we? Evolution cannot be tested; it lacks real "evidence" and relies on circumstancial evidence that can be interpreted to mean a number of things; it must ultimately account for the existence of matter; both evolution and creationism require a "miracle" of sorts. In contrast, the complexity of life and "fine-tuning" of the solar system indicate the presence of a "designer" - a conclusion that is much more logical than the idea that blind force and random chance created such complexity and finely balanced conditions.

Christinas should not use maths to defend there stance, it is untenable. use Love, it is the one and only savign grace of the faith. logic falls apart when built on faith becuse it requies epirical evidence to be truly safe, somthing Creation can't provide.

The "safety" of empirical evidence is an illusion at worst, and only a reasonably stable foundation at best. Empiricism cannot encompass the entirely of reality.

a book writen by 100s of authors translated though aramaic to greek to latin to engish and german then to hundreds of other languages over centurys canot be used by a logical person as a fair representation of the facts, and as such should be used as a fable to explain the world.

Have you done your research, or is this hearsay? Your comment suggests you are passing along rumors. The integrity of the Bible is only questioned by those with clear agendas of anti-scriptural bias. Many reputable scholars have examined the texts and verified their impressive levels of textual integrity and reliability. The only fable being seriously absorbed these days is the entertaining tale that we came from pond scum that mutated eventually into a monkey, and SOMEHOW humans eventually developed. That's good science fiction, you betcha.

Wintermute

03-22-2007, 09:26 AM

Good Day Adu,

Blaming God is a pretty understandable human reaction to the horrors and tragedy of the world..

I don't even know if a god exists, so it would be pretty silly of me to blame her/him/it.

However, hate and fear, pain and suffering, all of these things are direct byproducts of sin. ..

Sin, only exists if you believe in it. And, to believe in it you need to believe that a universal creator exists who defines it. I'm uncertain. I still would like to believe though, that if I do someday find my God, that it would have enough class not to create satan/sin, etc, just to have a reason to judge its creation--all the while causing untold pain and destruction. It just seems silly to me. But again, I'm just a 50 year old goober that doesn't have a clue most of the time...so who knows?

Sure, in theory, it would be great to just go out and drink and drug and have sex whenever the desire strikes us, and eat ourselves stupid, kill whoever annoys us and take whatever we want whether it belongs to someone else or not, but that doesn't really sound like a world I want to live in. .

I have a problem with this Adu. You imply that folks that don't believe, or are uncertain, are somehow less moral and more apt to do things like abuse drugs and are having sex all over the sidewalks. I think you are wrong. From my subjective observations, anti-social behaviour is pretty much spread evenly throught all beliefs, cultures, races, etc. Just because I'm uncertain about what's going on in the universe does NOT mean that I'm less moral than those who are.

Adudaewen

03-22-2007, 04:31 PM

I have a problem with this Adu. You imply that folks that don't believe, or are uncertain, are somehow less moral and more apt to do things like abuse drugs and are having sex all over the sidewalks. I think you are wrong. From my subjective observations, anti-social behaviour is pretty much spread evenly throught all beliefs, cultures, races, etc. Just because I'm uncertain about what's going on in the universe does NOT mean that I'm less moral than those who are.

That certainly wasn't my meaning, I have know a lot of non-believers who are the absolute salt of the Earth. I have also known a lot of people who profess to be Christian, and commit the most horrible acts. It was merely an example, a "for instance", if you will to demonstrate my point.

Wintermute

03-22-2007, 04:57 PM

That certainly wasn't my meaning, I have know a lot of non-believers who are the absolute salt of the Earth. I have also known a lot of people who profess to be Christian, and commit the most horrible acts. It was merely an example, a "for instance", if you will to demonstrate my point.

Hi Adu,

I figured it was. Like I've said you are extremely fair and open minded in your posts.

I do think, however, that many folks feel this way--that if you don't accept that Christ died for your sins then you are almost certainly an immoral, drug using sexual deviant that will surely burn in hell for eternity. And that bothers me... Sometimes I get a little touchy about it, sorry. :)

smartblonde2010

03-22-2007, 08:00 PM

perhaps evolution was a tool, and the Bibal does not really contradict the evolutionist theory...[/SIZE]

the bible DOES contradict evolution, because man came from DUST and not some ape. plain and simple.

hyperborean

03-22-2007, 08:45 PM

the bible DOES contradict evolution, because man came from DUST and not some ape. plain and simple.

Not really. Star dust is only the beginning...we didn't magically transform from dust into a human.

Redzeppelin

03-22-2007, 09:21 PM

Not really. Star dust is only the beginning...we didn't magically transform from dust into a human.

Right: according to evolution, we "magically" transformed from single cells through numerous random alterations/transmutations into humans. Thank goodness all the random factors that needed to be in place were in place! What were the odds of that?

aydin

03-23-2007, 07:40 AM

Wintermute

03-23-2007, 07:55 AM

Right: according to evolution, we "magically" transformed from single cells through numerous random alterations/transmutations into humans. Thank goodness all the random factors that needed to be in place were in place! What were the odds of that?

Hi Red,

Well, if they hadn't fallen into place, we wouldn't be discussing it would we?

I wonder how many worlds in this amazingly huge universe have not beaten the odds and have not evolved intelligent beings?

Just curious--if we do eventually discover intelligent life extraterrestrially, how will this effect your beliefs? And I know, I'm just asking for speculation on your part. Do you think they'd have the same spiritual component we humans do?

Wintermute

03-23-2007, 08:05 AM

This is such an interesting thread, but so long! Of course it's really just going to go round and round...

Anyway, I recently had a debate of sorts with a Christian, and according to him, it doesn't matter whether you are good or bad, those who don't accept that Jesus suffered for our (as in mankind) sake and therefore all our sins are forgiven, go to hell. Of course, if I were to believe in a God (and I think the guy thinks he has a chance of converting me - funny that, as the more he talked, the more irritating/amusing I found him) it certainly wouldn't be his one, but I was wondering if this is what the bible really says somewhere?

I also did a 'random act of kindness' (which wasn't really that, but that's what he called it) and seemed to be amazed that someone who didn't have his knowledge of the bible could do something like that... He said he wouldn't have thought of doing it, but if he had, it might have been as part of a plan or something (not his words specifically)... Just to clarify, I don't do good things (when I do them) in the hope of some afterlife reward, but (from the conversation I had with him) I was wondering what people thought on whether to do a good deed out of fear, or some sort of feeling of duty, or that with a manipulative idea behind it, is better than not doing the deed?

I am undecided as to whether a God actually exists but am open to the idea (seeing as there is no proof either way) although I still think that even if I knew everything there was to know about all the religions, faith is more a feeling you have inside, and not an intellectual subject that you can logically prove.

As for evolution - I know that a theory is only correct as long as there is no substantial evidence/ thoery to contradict it, but I think the evidence we have is pretty solid.

Hiya Aydin,

Well said! There is enough evidence to convince me that evolution is the path we're on. I still say, however, that a really classy god would have created evolution. And instead of thinking of it as an affront to their faith, folks should the thanking thier creator for such a wonderful gift. If you're out there, thank you.

As for the deal about accepting that Christ died for my sins--I don't even know what that means. It never has made a lick of sense to me. If you know you're gonna need to send your son down to get nailed to a cross in order to...fix things...why not just avoid that and do it right in the first place. It just doesn't seem real smart to me, and I think if a universally omnipotnet, omnicient creator exists, it would be MUCH smarter than we want to give it credit for. As always however, being agnostic, I could be wrong.

Thanks again for your post.

aydin

03-23-2007, 09:10 AM

Hi Wintermute,

Haha! Liked your analysis! Or perhaps should just say, made me laugh, before I go offending people. Agree with what you say about any possible creator being much smarter, which is why what this guy was saying to me seemed so totally stupid. If, knowing we are somewhat logical beings with the capability to think and reason, then, surely he could hardly penalise us for not believing in him?

Also this idea that humans are superior and everything in the universe was made for our purpose seems a little far-fetched to me. So all plants, animals, and I suppose planets as well, are here merely as some sort of function for us? Not that I'm saying we are inferior, but what makes us so superior? I have heard that intellect and the possession of a soul is what gives us an advantage. But amongst us humans don't we generally consider those that 'think' they are superior to be a bit idiotic, and doesn't this only make us superior if we place intelligence above all else?

As for the soul bit, if we have a soul because we breathe and feel, then I don't see why animals shouldn't. And although I do believe we have souls, is there any proof? Is it not that we have become so accustomed to accept that we have one, but that it originated from literature and art and philosophy and so forth? I'm probably wrong, so would welcome any feedback here.

The other thing I have heard is that we must have a soul because we have a conscience. We have a conscience because we are able to think, but I don't think this must mean that we have a soul? Sorry, I think I'm babbling on mindlessly. Will stop.

Adudaewen

03-23-2007, 10:17 AM

Hi Adu,

I figured it was. Like I've said you are extremely fair and open minded in your posts.

I do think, however, that many folks feel this way--that if you don't accept that Christ died for your sins then you are almost certainly an immoral, drug using sexual deviant that will surely burn in hell for eternity. And that bothers me... Sometimes I get a little touchy about it, sorry. :)

Thanx Wintermute, I hope that I can always be fair. Courtesy and open mindedness are two things I really strive for ;)

I totally agree with you, and you should get touchy about it. There are few things in this world that get me hot under the collar like "christians" who think they are better than everyone else. Drives me nuts! Especially when everything in our belief structure preaches against that! So I'm totally with you there. ;)

kilted exile

03-23-2007, 10:22 AM

Thank goodness all the random factors that needed to be in place were in place! What were the odds of that?

Quick point.The odds of the random factors being in place is unimportant as to the mutation originally taking place. There is still the same chance of the mutation taking place, these mutations were carried through and passed on to future generations because they were useful adaptations for the environmental conditions. There were also likely mutations which were not useful, these organisms died off and those mutations were not passed on.

An example:

Sickle cell anaemia is a genetic condition, which in the western world is not a useful adaptation and is as a result less prevalent in the western world. However, there have been studies which have shown people who suffer from sickle cell anaemia are less susceptible to malaria - interestingly it is quite prevalent in Northern Africa

Redzeppelin

03-23-2007, 10:38 AM

Hi Red,

Well, if they hadn't fallen into place, we wouldn't be discussing it would we?

Well, the other option is that God created us - and that's why we're here discussing it. :)

I wonder how many worlds in this amazingly huge universe have not beaten the odds and have not evolved intelligent beings?

The odds are so against life spontaneously occurring out of nothing that even our presence here points to a miracle - whether you call it God or not - and science doesn't like "miracles."

Just curious--if we do eventually discover intelligent life extraterrestrially, how will this effect your beliefs? And I know, I'm just asking for speculation on your part. Do you think they'd have the same spiritual component we humans do?

I think it absurd to believe that God - a Being of creative ability and a love of relationship - only created us and that's it. We're different because we were created "in God's image" but I think there's life out there (caveat: they don't come here though). We're just the only world that "fell." My beliefs wouldn't be shaken a bit. To believe that we're "it" in the vastness of the universe is too egocentric for me.

Wintermute

03-23-2007, 01:20 PM

The odds are so against life spontaneously occurring out of nothing that even our presence here points to a miracle - whether you call it God or not - and science doesn't like "miracles."

There's another one of those observations that swings both ways: The odds are so against God spontaneously occuring out of nothing. . .or existing for infinity...

Have you had to opportunity to read or watch the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan? In it, as I recall, he demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, complex protein molecules, could be generated from inorganic materials in an environment similar to how our early solar system is believed to have been. Granted, protiens are a long way from Beethoven's 9th symphony, but over billions of years...I dunno. I remain uncertain, lol.

hyperborean

03-23-2007, 01:49 PM

I think it absurd to believe that God - a Being of creative ability and a love of relationship - only created us and that's it. We're different because we were created "in God's image"

I hate when Christians say "god is love". Love is a human emotion; not what God is or what he represents. I know this sounds stoic, but emotions only weaken the individual. Why associate something we made up (love) with the divine being......the other thing we made up:lol:

Pico writes that "man is an afterthought" and that we were created so God would have a creature that would admire his work. I have nothing against true Christians who "climb the ladder up to the stars".

Whifflingpin

03-23-2007, 01:52 PM

Wintermute: "... the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan? In it, as I recall, he demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, complex protein molecules, could be generated from inorganic materials in an environment similar to how our early solar system is believed to have been. "

There may be building blocks, but that does not mean that they would ever self-generate into something more complex.

A field might be full of rocks, but you'd have to wait several eternities for then to form themselves into a house.

billyjack

03-23-2007, 02:10 PM

Wintermute

03-23-2007, 03:18 PM

A field might be full of rocks, but you'd have to wait several eternities for then to form themselves into a house.

Hi Whiff,

Well now, that depends on whether you consider a cave to be a house. Neanderthal certainly did. :)

How long would you need to wait for an empty vacuum to produce a God? Am I alone in this inability to grasp a universal creator that has existed for infinity and just a few billion years ago decided to create a massive, amazing universe with humanity in the center of it all? I just don't get it. I'm doomed to a life of uncertainty, hehe.

Wintermute

03-23-2007, 03:30 PM

there was never a point of creation, "its" always been. the fact that the title "evolution vs. creation" hits home for so many people tells me that both are probably wrong. cause i buy into the whole "7 out of 10" people are most likely invalids. and if this many invalids have a say on this matter, it must not be what really matters.

Hi Billy, thanks for your input.

Just so I understand, you are saying that 7 out of 10 (70%) of folks are invalids? Do you have some data on this? It's not consistant with my observations. Are you talking about folks that are physically disabled? Or are you pluralizing the adjective 'valid'--arguing that 7 out of 10 arguments on this thread are invalid? If that's the case I would disagree completely. Every argument on this thread is valid to the person that wrote it. Most everyone is sincere in their desire to explore the possibilities and conundrums this universe presents us with.

Now about there never being a point of creation--you have some evidence of this? Or is it just your opinion? I suspect the latter, but it is presented as fact so I was just curious.

Redzeppelin

03-23-2007, 05:01 PM

There's another one of those observations that swings both ways: The odds are so against God spontaneously occuring out of nothing. . .or existing for infinity...

I don't know how you calculate the "odds" for the existence of a Being who claims eternal existence. Calculating any such "odds" would be based on our idea as to the probability of something - how do you calculate the probability of a Divine Being?

Have you had to opportunity to read or watch the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan? In it, as I recall, he demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life, complex protein molecules, could be generated from inorganic materials in an environment similar to how our early solar system is believed to have been. Granted, protiens are a long way from Beethoven's 9th symphony, but over billions of years...I dunno. I remain uncertain, lol.

What I'd like Carl (or any other similar scientist) to do is tell me where the inorganic material came from and what was the catalyst that resulted in the "switchover" from inorganic to "life." "Could" implies potential, but not actual.

I hate when Christians say "god is love". Love is a human emotion; not what God is or what he represents. I know this sounds stoic, but emotions only weaken the individual. Why associate something we made up (love) with the divine being......the other thing we made up:lol:

Thus spake the Nietzschean "superman." God is identified in the Bible as love - He is the living definition of what love is - He and nothing else. That you are capable of love is proof that He lives within your heart (whether or not you acknowledge/like it). Furthermore, love is not an emotion - it is a choice. We did not "make up" love (though we certainly have distorted its meaning pretty severely).

Pico writes that "man is an afterthought" and that we were created so God would have a creature that would admire his work. I have nothing against true Christians who "climb the ladder up to the stars".

I'm glad Pico's self-esteem issue isn't mine. To make God into an egomaniac is a sure sign of someone trying to understand a being that is quite beyond his grasp.

Scheherazade

03-23-2007, 05:20 PM

This has been one of the oldest and most popular discussion threads in this section of the Forum. It is unfortunate that it will now be closed temporarily due to some members' inability to comply with Forum Rules and carry on civilized exchanges without resorting personal attacks on others and/or their beliefs.

I hope everyone will take this time-out perioud to read and familiarize themselves with these. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410)

Scheherazade

03-30-2007, 07:52 PM

This thread is now open for discussions again, in the hope that future posts will comply with the Forum Rules.

I would like to thank those members who refrain from inflammatory remarks or current politics and would also like to remind that those who persistently resort to such comments might be banned temporarily/permanently from the Forum:
The general Forum Rules (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/announcement.php?f=6) apply here, as well as the following:

1. Discussion of religious or sacred texts is encouraged here, but please remember to respect the beliefs of others.

2. These forums are not here for preaching, or attempts to convert, nor promote other religiously affiliated websites.

3. Please do not copy and paste huge tracts of text, you shouldn't need more than a few sentences or a paragraph to make your point in reference to the topic/discussion. Having said that, if you are going to refer to or use content from other sites, you must include a link for it. You cannot copy and paste entire articles from other sites because that is copyright infringement, and contributes nothing to discussion. From Copyright.gov (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html) ; "Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."

4. Admin and the Moderators reserve the right to edit, delete, close, and/or remove topics or posts, not always with warning. It is up to you to understand the forum rules.

5. If you are going to post to this part of the forums, you must be willing to subject yourself to other members' points of views and opinions, which may not agree with yours.

6. This area is for discussions of specific religious texts. Any other general religious topics started will be subject to Admin's or the Moderator's discretion as to whether they remain.

7. As of the 25th of May 2006 any member failing to follow these rules may simply lose their ability to post & view this subforum instead of being warned. Any such member who continues to misbehave may be banned from the forum as a whole.
.
.

The Atheist

04-01-2007, 06:14 PM

Sorry, Red, I hadn't checked back, but I'll answer a couple of your comments here:

Your assertion that creation if "fantasy" expresses an opinion and nothing else but - an opinion you cannot substantiate.That's actually incorrect. I can satisfactorily explain every step of evolution barring abiogenesis, for which there are several interesting hypotheses and theories, but as yet, no proof.

If your creationism is "God created Earth and enabled abiogenesis", then I can't really argue against that from facts, so I don't. The thought that anything beyond the first, single-celled life forms was "created" by anything other than evolution is simply flying in the face of all scientific results and facts to date. If you think the biblical creation is literal, I can't help you, but if you'd like hard facts, I can surely provide plenty.

Feel free to give examples of what "facts" creation "flies in the face of" so I can seriously consider them;The amount of evidence as to evolution of life forms since the first single-celled ones is so enormous that it would require far more space than is currently used by this entire forum, so I need some specifics as to what bothers you.

then I'll throw out at you some of the sheer absurdities that science requires me to accept to explain reality without the causal agent of God. That would be an excellent place to start! You give me a few examples of "scientific absurdity" and we'll go from that.

The only "fantasy" being entertained here IMO is the idea that we're the products of random, faceless chance - the odds of which occurring are so astronomical as to approach zero probability.

I'm not sure whether you're a mathematician, or at all up to date with current mathematical work in the evolution of animals, but if we're talking evolution from single-celled organisms, the actual algorithm for evolution shows an infinitesimally small chance that it isn't factual. And I do mean small, as in billions to one against evolution.

I look forward to discussing this some more - I see the thread's been closed once, but if we stick to facts and data, there should be no problem.

watkinsguy

04-02-2007, 01:11 PM

billyjack

04-02-2007, 01:55 PM

When you see a painting, you know there had to be a painter. So when you see the complexities that is the universe, how can you not wonder "How did all this get here?". I'll give you a hint:it wasn't trillions of atoms being tightly compressed together until they exploded.....

matter of fact statement are most likely not facts.

i think you're hinting at some all powerful creator being behind the "way" of things: creating them, having some sort of plan. . .

i don't think that's neccessary though. people use the human eye as an example for why evolution is crap, saying its far too complex for natural selection and evolution to account for its intricacies. but scientist have shown how the eye would've evolved through some pretty simple but brilliant demonstrations involving lenses and light--and its powerful evidence to show that even the most complicated things don't need a creator. look at an acorn, within it and its surrounding lies the blueprint of an oak. no creator is need for this. its just the way of things. omnipotence is doing spontaneously, without having to think about it. the universe didnt need to be consiously devised by God. it didnt need to be devised or planned at all. it just is.

Lily Adams

04-02-2007, 02:46 PM

What I'd like Carl (or any other similar scientist) to do is tell me where the inorganic material came from and what was the catalyst that resulted in the "switchover" from inorganic to "life." "Could" implies potential, but not actual.

Oh, but he does! I own the series, and in other episodes, (not just that one about evolution) he talks about how the stars of the universe created (and still create) different elements (including carbon, the necessary element for life) through fusion pf hydrogen and helium. But the second episode, "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue", is the one that talks about the evolution of life.

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 04:10 PM

That's actually incorrect. I can satisfactorily explain every step of evolution barring abiogenesis, for which there are several interesting hypotheses and theories, but as yet, no proof.

You can offer me science's interpretation (an inherently subjective tool of knowledge) of observable evidence that a creationist might have en equally compelling interpretation of - the big difference is that the creationist scientist doen't have the problem explaining where matter came from.

If your creationism is "God created Earth and enabled abiogenesis", then I can't really argue against that from facts, so I don't. The thought that anything beyond the first, single-celled life forms was "created" by anything other than evolution is simply flying in the face of all scientific results and facts to date. If you think the biblical creation is literal, I can't help you, but if you'd like hard facts, I can surely provide plenty.

The "hard facts" argument creates a problem because it requires you to live a life based on only what you can verify via the "hard facts." That creates some difficulties because it's a pretty sure bet that there are many things you believe to be true that you have no "hard facts" to corroborate. As well, if you are arguing for a totally Naturalistic world-view, then we now have to deal with the difficulty of the meaning of your words, as well as the issue of freewill: because, in a Naturalistic world, humans essentially have no freewill because they are subject to the forces of this world (biological, chemical, neurological, social, psychological) that are beyond their control; as well, since your brain is merely a machine full of chemical and electric interactions, how can you claim that your words are a) your own, and b) that they're "true"?

The amount of evidence as to evolution of life forms since the first single-celled ones is so enormous that it would require far more space than is currently used by this entire forum, so I need some specifics as to what bothers you.

That life came from non-life (a violation of the law of biogenesis); that matter came from nothing; that one-celled creatures resulted in the irreducible complexity of things like the eye.

That would be an excellent place to start! You give me a few examples of "scientific absurdity" and we'll go from that.

Some evolutionists have conceded that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 250th power. Borel's single law of chance tells us that when chance exceeds 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power that absolutely no chance remains for an event to occur. Other evolutionary scientists have estimated the chance that life could evolve at 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. Most of us wouldn't bet our life savings on odds of 1 in a 100.

I'm not sure whether you're a mathematician, or at all up to date with current mathematical work in the evolution of animals, but if we're talking evolution from single-celled organisms, the actual algorithm for evolution shows an infinitesimally small chance that it isn't factual. And I do mean small, as in billions to one against evolution.

Even if you could prove such, one-cell into the complexity of the human body is something I cannot accept. Nature tends towards entropy and chaos - not increasing order.

cuppajoe_9

04-02-2007, 05:00 PM

I'll just take this one:
That life came from non-life (a violation of the law of biogenesis); that matter came from nothing; that one-celled creatures resulted in the irreducible complexity of things like the eye.Eyes are not irreducibly compex. Michael Behe, inventor of the concept, defines irreducible complexity as "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". You could remove any of several parts of the eye and it would still function, just not as well. (The same is true of the bacterial flagellum, if you were thinking of bringing tht one up.) Even the ID people have stopped harping on the eye, because it is now known perfectly well how the eye evolved.

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 05:04 PM

I'll just take this one:Eyes are not irreducibly compex. Michael Behe, inventor of the concept, defines irreducible complexity as "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". You could remove any of several parts of the eye and it would still function, just not as well. (The same is true of the bacterial flagellum, if you were thinking of bringing tht one up.) Even the ID people have stopped harping on the eye, because it is now known perfectly well how the eye evolved.

Define "just not as well" - and then we could perhaps have some sort of Platonic dialogue on whether or not a thing that functions "not as well as it should" is actually "functioning" in any way that is germane to the thing's proper mode of operation.

cuppajoe_9

04-02-2007, 05:16 PM

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 05:23 PM

If I were to remove your cataracts and not put in an artificial lens, for example, you would be unable to drive a car, but you would be able to keep from being run over by one (an important function of the eye). If I were to remove your iris as well, you would be unable to adjust to how close or far away an object is to you, but you wouldn't be totally blind. If I were to remove all the structures in your eye except for the retina, you would not have functional vision, but you would be able to tell the difference between light and dark, which would be useful if you happened to be a small, cave-dwelling arthropod who eats plants that grow in the light.

On the other hand, if I could, by some very complicated operation, remove only the colour-sensitive cells in your retina, you would still have perfectly functional vision, it's just that the glories of technicolor film would be lost on you.

OK - then let's hypothesize for a moment: since removing any of the parts you mentioned (which, by the way you did not mention all of the parts available for removal and one must wonder if there are other parts of the eyes' structure that are affected by the disabling of a less-than-necessary part) significantly limits the creature's ability to function, then how does that jive with natural selection? A creature that doesn't see well cannot be expected to survive long.

And, even if that supposition is weak (I think it is) I still contend that the untold thousands of random positive mutations that had to occur for the eye to develop requires me to believe in odds that I find unacceptable. Are the odds for the existence of God greater or lesser than the incredible odds that have to exist for evolution to be correct?

billyjack

04-02-2007, 05:37 PM

OK - then let's hypothesize for a moment: since removing any of the parts you mentioned (which, by the way you did not mention all of the parts available for removal and one must wonder if there are other parts of the eyes' structure that are affected by the disabling of a less-than-necessary part) significantly limits the creature's ability to function, then how does that jive with natural selection? A creature that doesn't see well cannot be expected to survive long.

And, even if that supposition is weak (I think it is) I still contend that the untold thousands of random positive mutations that had to occur for the eye to develop requires me to believe in odds that I find unacceptable. Are the odds for the existence of God greater or lesser than the incredible odds that have to exist for evolution to be correct?

1) this has been so twisted to make it sound wrong that its tough to see what cupofjoe was even talking about in the first place. you just built a STRAW MAN of the michael behe eye argument.

2) mutations are natural events. the odds of somthing natural explaining events leading up to "us" seem better to me than the odds of something unatural and made-up explaining "us."

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 06:28 PM

1) this has been so twisted to make it sound wrong that its tough to see what cupofjoe was even talking about in the first place. you just built a STRAW MAN of the michael behe eye argument.

My lack of sophistication makes this point of yours difficult for me to see. If you'd explain it in more detail I'd be very appreciative.

2) mutations are natural events. the odds of somthing natural explaining events leading up to "us" seem better to me than the odds of something unatural and made-up explaining "us."

Only if all of reality can only be comprehended via the "natural." I'm not sure how I'm not supposed to see the incredible leap of faith required to believe that blind force and random chance resulted in the complexity of human beings - that to me appears no more reasonable than the idea of a supernatural being. I suggest that you (and other evolutionists) like evolution because "we" came up with the explanation - and I will admit there's a certain comfort in feeling like you've explained everything all by yourself. Nonetheless, the explanation offered by humanity is just as incredible as creation - but because we can "see" a good chunk of it, we take comfort from that (despite the massive obstacles that must be overcome to accept it as true) rather than the (perhaps) larger leap of faith that the believer must make.

Why don't you tell me what the odds of God existing are as compared to the odds of all these random mutations? I'm still waiting on those numbers.

watkinsguy

04-02-2007, 06:28 PM

1) this has been so twisted to make it sound wrong that its tough to see what cupofjoe was even talking about in the first place. you just built a STRAW MAN of the michael behe eye argument.

2) mutations are natural events. the odds of somthing natural explaining events leading up to "us" seem better to me than the odds of something unatural and made-up explaining "us."

really.....mutations 95% of the time are harmful to the organism it affects, and usually are lethal. Also something i would like to ask is this: why do we have gay people today? If natural selection and evolution were true, nature would have "weeded" out so to speak the ones that could not reproduce (homosexuals).

The Atheist

04-02-2007, 07:59 PM

i have a question...everything comes from something yes? So where exactly did the proverbial "cosmic gunk from which we all evolved from" come from? I mean at one point and time there had to be nothing in this universe, so how did it all get here? A more specific example I guess is when you see a building, you know there had to be a builder. When you see a painting, you know there had to be a painter. So when you see the complexities that is the universe, how can you not wonder "How did all this get here?". I'll give you a hint:it wasn't trillions of atoms being tightly compressed together until they exploded.....

Ah, Summa Theologica. The old faithful infinite regression, or in your words, the god of the first cause....

Everything must have a cause, so what caused the first cause?

It is a tricky ontological question, because we don't actually know the answer to the question. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, we don't even really understand the question.

The way I look at it is that if at the dawn of creation of the entire universe, some entity lit the fuse and the universe has proceeded on its own ever since then, he's not much of a god for anyone to worry about, so I don't.

When you see a painting, you know there was a painter, but do you need to know that he had a father, who that father was, who his father was, who his grandfather was, back to homo erectus and beyond? do you need to know that the tempura paint was created from an egg, which was laid by a chicken and how that chicken came into being?

Infinite regress is infinitely dumb.

watkinsguy

04-02-2007, 08:04 PM

billyjack

04-02-2007, 08:14 PM

really.....mutations 95% of the time are harmful to the organism it affects, and usually are lethal. Also something i would like to ask is this: why do we have gay people today? If natural selection and evolution were true, nature would have "weeded" out so to speak the ones that could not reproduce (homosexuals).

i doubt mutations are harmful 95% of the time. even so, they exist.

gay people ey? well, i think it is a contemporary phenomenon that gays have decided to be exclusively homosexual. back in the day and in the animal world today we see not gays, but bisexuals. bonobo monkees have sex with everybody. they're also just as smart as chimps but 99% less aggressive. sex makes them calm, cool, collective. point is, exclusive homoesexuality hasnt been going on long eneogh to have any evolutionary significance on population numbers. keep in mind, evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years. homo sapien sapien only's been around, what...? couple hundred thousand years.

My lack of sophistication makes this point of yours difficult for me to see. If you'd explain it in more detail I'd be very appreciative

Why don't you tell me what the odds of God existing are as compared to the odds of all these random mutations? I'm still waiting on those numbers.

1) you lobbed me in there with the evolutionist just becaus i questioned creation. i actually responed to this poll that i wasnt sure. see how religion is forced to deal in absolutes like siths. its neccessary in order to have some cause for your tribe to rally around. kind of like how in 1984 the oceanics need war to stay focused and together. my apologies for using a made up story to help make my point.

2) the straw-man was created thusly: you took one part of the "eye argument" brought up by cup of joe and twisted it into something that it wasnt. that is fallicious.

3) odds? what odds? odds of mutation making man: who knows, but some percentage exist, no matter how low, but lets say .001 % for argument sake. odds of an all powerful god consciously deciding it was time to make man : 0%...because this all-powerful god is an idea that hasnt been proven in reality. mutations have been proven. my money's on reality over ideality.

watkinsguy

04-02-2007, 08:20 PM

i doubt mutations are harmful 95% of the time. even so, they exist.

gay people ey? well, i think it is a contemporary phenomenon that gays have decided to be exclusively homosexual. back in the day and in the animal world today we see not gays, but bisexuals. bonobo monkees have sex with everybody. they're also just as smart as chimps but 99% less aggressive. sex makes them calm, cool, collective. point is, exclusive homoesexuality hasnt been going on long eneogh to have any evolutionary significance on population numbers. keep in mind, evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years. homo sapien sapien only's been around, what...? couple hundred thousand years.

ok billyjack look up the % of mutations that are actually beneficial to an organism and get back to me.....one last question for you to answer and then I will get back to debating whatever nonsense you through out:why do we still have other animals if we evolved from them? i am very aware that this is one of the most over asked questions of evolution, and know the response I am going to get (i think). I do, however, want to know what your spin is on the subject

billyjack

04-02-2007, 08:33 PM

ok billyjack look up the % of mutations that are actually beneficial to an organism and get back to me.....one last question for you to answer and then I will get back to debating whatever nonsense you through out:why do we still have other animals if we evolved from them? i am very aware that this is one of the most over asked questions of evolution, and know the response I am going to get (i think). I do, however, want to know what your spin is on the subject

spin on the subject? thanks for asking for my opinion, but its not really an opinion, its more of an accepted truth based on the evidence (note: there is evidence for these claims being tossed about). . . there are still primates even though humans are around because we split in the evolutionary tree far before monkees were monkees and people people. we shared a common ancestor that was neither monkey or human. so we share the same branch, but we are on different stems.

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 08:47 PM

2) the straw-man was created thusly: you took one part of the "eye argument" brought up by cup of joe and twisted it into something that it wasnt. that is fallicious.

His argument was that you can "remove" certain components of the eye and have it still "function" as a sort of refutation to irreducible complexity; I simply noted that 1) there are other components he did not address and I wondered if they were affected (since many of the eye's structures are inter-relative) and 2) that wouldn't the centuries (at minimum) of imperfect vision have detracted from a creature's ability to survive - given that natural selection indicates that those ill-fit for survival would not. How is that Straw man?

3) odds? what odds? odds of mutation making man: who knows, but some percentage exist, no matter how low, but lets say .001 % for argument sake. odds of an all powerful god consciously deciding it was time to make man : 0%...because this all-powerful god is an idea that hasnt been proven in reality. mutations have been proven. my money's on reality over ideality.

Oh no, my friend - .001% is far too high. As I have quoted elsewhere, evolutionists (not creationists, mind you) have calculated the odds of evolution creating life at between 1 in 10 to the 250th power to 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. I think that's a wee bit smaller than .001% - don't you? Second, your odds for God are skewed by your humanist presupposition - your bias won't allow for the existence of a Divine Being, so you decide the odds are 0. As well, since you don't have exhaustive knowledge of the entire galaxy and its contents, you cannot suggest 0% odds because to claim God doesn't exist is to claim that you know of all that does exist. Do you? As far as the "hasn't been proven in reality" bit - well, neither has the untestable, unprovable and unverifiable hypothesis that life evolved billions of years ago throught the action of random, blind force. Your argument eats itself.

Your money is on a "reality" that is limited in scope and limited in its full understanding; the observable world is the tip of a very large iceberg that many people like to pretend doesn't exist. It does.

watkinsguy

04-02-2007, 08:54 PM

spin on the subject? thanks for asking for my opinion, but its not really an opinion, its more of an accepted truth based on the evidence (note: there is evidence for these claims being tossed about). . . there are still primates even though humans are around because we split in the evolutionary tree far before monkees were monkees and people people. we shared a common ancestor that was neither monkey or human. so we share the same branch, but we are on different stems.

if we share common ancestors like you suggest, why havent we found hundreds if not thousands of missing links? i mean even if you do believe in Cro Magnon man and all that, that really doesnt seem to account for the "thousands of years" between apes and humans now does it? one would expect to find at least a whole race of missing links not just a couple.

billyjack

04-02-2007, 09:06 PM

that wouldn't the centuries (at minimum) of imperfect vision have detracted from a creature's ability to survive - given that natural selection indicates that those ill-fit for survival would not. How is that Straw man?

Oh no, my friend - .001% is far too high. As I have quoted elsewhere, evolutionists (not creationists, mind you) have calculated the odds of evolution creating life at between 1 in 10 to the 250th power to 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. I think that's a wee bit smaller than .001% - don't you? Second, your odds for God are skewed by your humanist presupposition - your bias won't allow for the existence of a Divine Being, so you decide the odds are 0. As well, since you don't have exhaustive knowledge of the entire galaxy and its contents, you cannot suggest 0% odds because to claim God doesn't exist is to claim that you know of all that does exist. Do you? As far as the "hasn't been proven in reality" bit - well, neither has the untestable, unprovable and unverifiable hypothesis that life evolved billions of years ago throught the action of random, blind force. Your argument eats itself.

Your money is on a "reality" that is limited in scope and limited in its full understanding; the observable world is the tip of a very large iceberg that many people like to pretend doesn't exist. It does.

1) it wouldnt be seen as imperfect vision. perfect vision is a human idea. back when the eye was coming about it would have been seen as a major improvement on what there was before. of course these animals with the eyes wouldn't be thinking this, but this is what we would think if we took a gander back in time.

2)ok, so .01 10 to the hundredth, whatever. still better odds than zero. why would i need consious knowledge of the entire universe to know that a divine being doesnt exist. human beings are microcosms of the universe. i look at people, i don't see some supernatural god, i see natural gods. from this, i risk overgeneralizing and say that all that is exist natural, is of the universe... nothing exist outside the universe. no being or all powerful somebody. i know this because we do fine without one, so why would we need one. it would be redundant to make a creator when "it" creates on its own, and the universe isnt redundant.

yes, but there is evidence. not written evidence like some tend to like so much, but fossil evidence...unquestionalbe evidence.

3) so where is the proof of the rest of this iceberg? at least with a real iceburg we know that more exist underwater from experience. where is the experience to prove this divine you speak of. why does there need to be a divine. what's so wrong with natural. why this disdain for experience? i call it lacking the will to life. you say no to life and yes to that which is not life. god is life you said. you say this, but then you seem to hold the natural world--the observed world--life-- in disdain. and instead you hold in regard that which is unnatural, unobservable...your argument seems to eat itself too.

watkinsguy

04-02-2007, 09:23 PM

The Atheist

04-02-2007, 09:50 PM

You can offer me science's interpretation (an inherently subjective tool of knowledge) of observable evidence that a creationist might have en equally compelling interpretation of - the big difference is that the creationist scientist doen't have the problem explaining where matter came from.

The difference is that creationists don't have a compelling anything - no evidence, no nothing, just one fairytale. If they could at least come up with a single piece of evidence to support their assertion they might be worth listening to, but they don't. Mostly because they don't have any.

At least science can point to evidence. Incomplete, obviously, as is the fossil record, but actual, hard evidence.

The "hard facts" argument creates a problem because it requires you to live a life based on only what you can verify via the "hard facts." That creates some difficulties because it's a pretty sure bet that there are many things you believe to be true that you have no "hard facts" to corroborate.

Again, that's an easy assertion to make, but I'd like you to try to find one thing for which there are no hard facts and where I must make only assumptions.

Just one, thanks.

As well, if you are arguing for a totally Naturalistic world-view, then we now have to deal with the difficulty of the meaning of your words, as well as the issue of freewill: because, in a Naturalistic world, humans essentially have no freewill because they are subject to the forces of this world (biological, chemical, neurological, social, psychological) that are beyond their control; as well, since your brain is merely a machine full of chemical and electric interactions, how can you claim that your words are a) your own, and b) that they're "true"?

Sorry, my friend, but this is child's play you're in here. There have been many books and articles written about compatibilist free will which are very easy to find and I suggest you start with Daniel Dennett.

In the meantime, I'll just tell you that you're confusing determinism and fatalism/predestination. It's a common mistake, but the simple fact is that humans are faced with so many outcomes that the illusion of free will persists as the choices appear infinite - to our limited ability to understand infinity.

That life came from non-life (a violation of the law of biogenesis); that matter came from nothing; that one-celled creatures resulted in the irreducible complexity of things like the eye.

I see that your eye fallacy has been explained. The other comment is just way off track. there are no "rules" and nobody's about to suggest that matter came from "nothing". Simple high-school physics & biology is all you appear to be missing at this stage

Some evolutionists have conceded that the odds of evolution occurring are 1 in 10 to the 250th power.

Completely incorrect. That is a fallacy which you've heard or seen somewhere and it's been told to you by someone who has no understanding of evolution or mathematics - it's simply outrageously incorrect As I stated above, actual evolutionary scientists and mathematicians can show you that the exact opposite is true.

Borel's single law of chance tells us that when chance exceeds 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power that absolutely no chance remains for an event to occur.Well, I hope he wasn't a mathematician, because those chance things do actually happen. The good news is that I don't have to bother explaining it because it's not relevant to evolution - as noted.

Other evolutionary scientists have estimated the chance that life could evolve at 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. Most of us wouldn't bet our life savings on odds of 1 in a 100.

Again, this is outrageously false. You assert that "evolutionary scientists" make those claims. I refute that utterly. They may be people claiming to be evolutionary scientists, but they clearly aren't. Or, if they are, they are so out of touch with 99.999999999% of actual evolutionary scientists that they are certifiably insane. Thomas Aquinas' first redux is, "Truth cannot contradict truth", so even some religions need to accept some of the truths we already have about evolution. Statements like your above claim isn't part of a debate, it's silly rhetoric. The fact that it's demonstrably wrong is a very good reason why you shouldn't parrot it.

Even if you could prove such, one-cell into the complexity of the human body is something I cannot accept.

Seriously, if that's the way you feel, why do you debate these things? You are exercising Doublethink if you are denying facts. You're saying that you will deny proof. I'm not saying that evolutionary science has all of the answers, but positing ideas which go against the facts we do have already makes it mighty hard to defend. If you wish to ignore actual, physical evidence, you really shouldn't debate them. You are essentially arguing that black is white.

Nature tends towards entropy and chaos - not increasing order.

Again, that's a very silly factual error. Actual studies using real DNA and animals has long since exploded that notion.

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 09:57 PM

1) it wouldnt be seen as imperfect vision. perfect vision is a human idea. back when the eye was coming about it would have been seen as a major improvement on what there was before. of course these animals with the eyes wouldn't be thinking this, but this is what we would think if we took a gander back in time.

Interesting argument - but the odds are still too high, and contrary to cuppajoe's assertion, I'd need to see a source to buy that the irreducable complexity of the eye has completely disappeared. The idea that an eye could even develop, along with the necessary brain alterations, that the two (brain and eye) have a common language of communication -- all that seems too precise to have simply developed. Why an eye at all?

2)ok, so .01 10 to the hundredth, whatever. still better odds than zero. why would i need consious knowledge of the entire universe to know that a divine being doesnt exist. human beings are microcosms of the universe. i look at people, i don't see some supernatural god, i see natural gods. from this, i risk overgeneralizing and say that all that is exist natural, is of the universe... nothing exist outside the universe. no being or all powerful somebody. i know this because we do fine without one, so why would we need one. it would be redundant to make a creator when "it" creates on its own, and the universe isnt redundant.

No - odds of the magnitude I posted above are pretty much zero. The idea that we are microcosms of the universe is again a humanist idea - it places humanity as the defining standard by which reality is measured and that is flat out wrong - your contention about "natural gods" is meaningless - human beings cannot be "gods" except to themselves - and people who do this generally become unholy terrors. Second, to say that nothing exists outside of the universe is to suggest that the universe generated itself. Impossible. Something outside of it had to begin it at some point in time. Matter comes from matter - matter does not generate ex nihilo. Your contention that you're existing fine without God is tremendously ironic to me - because all that lives comes from God - and God is the source of all life in the universe (including yours). There is no existence apart from God; you don't have to acknowledge Him for Him to sustain you: He does so out of love.

yes, but there is evidence. not written evidence like some tend to like so much, but fossil evidence...unquestionalbe evidence.

I like the "unquestionable" adjective. Much evidence requires interpretation - and interpretation is subject to bias.

3) so where is the proof of the rest of this iceberg? at least with a real iceburg we know that more exist underwater from experience. where is the experience to prove this divine you speak of. why does there need to be a divine. what's so wrong with natural. why this disdain for experience? i call it lacking the will to life. you say no to life and yes to that which is not life. god is life you said. you say this, but then you seem to hold the natural world--the observed world--life-- in disdain. and instead you hold in regard that which is unnatural, unobservable...your argument seems to eat itself too.

I do not hold the natural world in disdain - it too testifies to the existence of God. But I do not place it as the sole arbiter of what is "real." The existence of morality, the beauty and complexity of nature attest to the existence of God. The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and the textual integrity of the holy scriptures point to the existence of God. The fact that humans even aspire to create, to achieve, to love and to become more than what they seem - all of these attest to the fingerprints of a Divine Creator. These may not seem "hard" evidence to you, but to the believer, they are there and are very, very real. And, besides, as I have repeatedly said, "verifiable" evidence cannot be the definitive standard of reality: you exercise faith everytime you go out to eat - because you have no verifiable proof that the cook washed his hands, didn't spit in your soup, etc; as well, you do not have verifiable "proof" that when someone says sorry to you that they really are - you must rely upon faith. Please stop going on about the "observable" and how it decides whether God exists or not - the observable is only PART of the picture.

The Atheist

04-02-2007, 10:09 PM

what on earth are you talking about? its very simple logic that I would like to be answered. Don't try and put it down, all you did was prove that the arguement I put forth is valid because no where in that post did you ever present a valid counter-arguement.

I pointed out that I don't need to have a counter argument. I'm not bothered by either infinite regress or first cause. If there's a god/entity/being which caused the big bang, then that's fine. Personally, I see the "what came before the big bang" as a futile chicken'egg scenario. Accordingly, since it happened many billions of years ago, I'm happy to ignore it.

As to simple logic, there's no logic in it at all - it's a circular argument, the very enemy of logic.

The Atheist

04-02-2007, 10:16 PM

ok billyjack look up the % of mutations that are actually beneficial to an organism and get back to me.....one last question for you to answer and then I will get back to debating whatever nonsense you through out:why do we still have other animals if we evolved from them? i am very aware that this is one of the most over asked questions of evolution, and know the response I am going to get (i think). I do, however, want to know what your spin is on the subject

Now I know this was aimed at billyjack and he's answered it, but your question contains such blatant and basic errors, that I'll add a little.

If evolution worked as your question suggests, there would be no mammals other than humans. That is the kind of hypothesis I'd expect from an intelligent design proponent.

Evolution takes along time.

I'm constantly amazed by creationists who ask, "Why don't we see evolution happening? No chimps give birth to humans!"

Nor did they ever. Eveolutionary changes happen over millennia, not months. Plus, if you go and check some actual facts, you will be able to see that we do indeed have physical evidence of mutations, but in lower animals, which are able to evolve more readily thanks to their basic structure. Again, this supports evolution, not the other way round.

cuppajoe_9

04-02-2007, 10:57 PM

1) there are other components he did not address and I wondered if they were affected (since many of the eye's structures are inter-relative) and 2) that wouldn't the centuries (at minimum) of imperfect vision have detracted from a creature's ability to survive - given that natural selection indicates that those ill-fit for survival would not.1) You are not asking for a reply on a message board, you are asking for a medical school textbook. I obviously cannot deal with every structrure in the eye, as it is one of the most complicated organs in your body. It is not, however, irreducibly complex, even by the standards of the man who invented the concept. If such hypothetical assumptions are not good enough for you, I suggest you take a look at one of the many thousands of organisms whose eyes, when compared to our own, are missing structures. Here's one. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Smed.jpg) Those spots on the left-hand side are the equivalent of your eyes, minus every structure except a little bit of the retina. Perfectly functional. Here's another one. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Nautilus.jpg/600px-Nautilus.jpg) That's a very interesting one, actually. The eye of the nautalus is to your eye as a pinhole camera is to a Canon. There isn't any lens in other words.

2) A few million years, actually. Imperfect vision would absolutely not be a detriment to the first creature to develop it, because it would be competing with creatures who have absolutely no vision. This question is often postulated as "What good is half an eye?". I've already showed you a picture of a real creature with about 1% of an eye. What good is it? It's a hell of a lot better than none of an eye, evidently.

But don't take my word for it, ask Richard Dawkins. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4)

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 11:29 PM

The difference is that creationists don't have a compelling anything - no evidence, no nothing, just one fairytale. If they could at least come up with a single piece of evidence to support their assertion they might be worth listening to, but they don't. Mostly because they don't have any.

Is that comment based on actually reviewing the evidence or hearsay? The "they don't have any" is a clear exaggeration. They have no less because they're using the same observable world as evolutionists.

At least science can point to evidence. Incomplete, obviously, as is the fossil record, but actual, hard evidence.

Here we go again - the "hard evidence" position. Is that all reality is to you - that which you can see, hear, taste, touch and smell?

Again, that's an easy assertion to make, but I'd like you to try to find one thing for which there are no hard facts and where I must make only assumptions.

Just one, thanks.

When your lover says "I love you" to you, you cannot verify that s/he is telling the truth - you take it on faith, you assume (based on what you know, what you believe, what you wish) that those words are true. When you get married, you have no verifiable "proof" that your spouse will keep his/her vows - you assume s/he will do so and you will continue to do until you get "evidence" to the contrary.

Sorry, my friend, but this is child's play you're in here. There have been many books and articles written about compatibilist free will which are very easy to find and I suggest you start with Daniel Dennett.
In the meantime, I'll just tell you that you're confusing determinism and fatalism/predestination. It's a common mistake, but the simple fact is that humans are faced with so many outcomes that the illusion of free will persists as the choices appear infinite - to our limited ability to understand infinity.

OK - so books and articles have been written expressing a different opinion - that doesn't necessarily mean that my argument doesn't exist anymore - it means that someone else doesn't agree with it. Two interpretations exist - OK - now what?

I see that your eye fallacy has been explained. The other comment is just way off track. there are no "rules" and nobody's about to suggest that matter came from "nothing". Simple high-school physics & biology is all you appear to be missing at this stage

I'm not convinced the irreducable complexity argument has necessarily been fully refuted, and I certainly wouldn't lable it a "fallacy."

billyjack's comment that nothing exists outside the universe implies that the universe generated itself. That is impossible. I detect some condescension in your final comment, but I'll ignore it for now.

Completely incorrect. That is a fallacy which you've heard or seen somewhere and it's been told to you by someone who has no understanding of evolution or mathematics - it's simply outrageously incorrect As I stated above, actual evolutionary scientists and mathematicians can show you that the exact opposite is true.

Fine - provide me with your sources and I'll happily retract my statement - since you yourself (I assume) would never concede an argument without "hard evidence" - right? Otherwise you're asking me to assume that you're trustworthy. So let's have your hard evidence that contradicts the numbers I posted.

Well, I hope he wasn't a mathematician, because those chance things do actually happen. The good news is that I don't have to bother explaining it because it's not relevant to evolution - as noted.

Borel was a mathematician.

Here: "However, the initial difficulties of evolutionary theory so clearly laid out in many books, pale to insignificance when faced with the heroic difficulty of finally evolving a man. The noted scientists Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan have estimated that the difficulty of evolving a man by chance processes alone is 1 in 102,000,000,000—which Borel’s law says is no chance at all.14 (See below.) Indeed, a chance so small is not even conceivable. This is a figure with 2 billion zeroes after it and would require some ten thousand books, of one hundred and fifty pages just to write it out."
from What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means?—Part Two by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon

Again, this is outrageously false. You assert that "evolutionary scientists" make those claims. I refute that utterly. They may be people claiming to be evolutionary scientists, but they clearly aren't. Or, if they are, they are so out of touch with 99.999999999% of actual evolutionary scientists that they are certifiably insane. Thomas Aquinas' first redux is, "Truth cannot contradict truth", so even some religions need to accept some of the truths we already have about evolution. Statements like your above claim isn't part of a debate, it's silly rhetoric. The fact that it's demonstrably wrong is a very good reason why you shouldn't parrot it.

So you say. Feel free to commence with the "demonstration" as to the "wrongness" of those numbers (which Carl Sagan - does he count as evolution scientist? - seems to have echoed above).

Seriously, if that's the way you feel, why do you debate these things? You are exercising Doublethink if you are denying facts. You're saying that you will deny proof. I'm not saying that evolutionary science has all of the answers, but positing ideas which go against the facts we do have already makes it mighty hard to defend. If you wish to ignore actual, physical evidence, you really shouldn't debate them. You are essentially arguing that black is white.

Not at all. You and I are arguing from two different presuppositional bases: yours says that there is no such being as God; as such, all your arguments and conclusions are stemming from that foundation. In contrast, I am operating from the foundation that God is real and that He did all the creating; as such, all my arguments are stemming from that foundational conclusion. Don't act like you're any different; you've chosen a humanist foundation to argue from - therefore there is no "evidence" that I could give you that would change your position any more than you could change mine - the "evidence" you so love to tout is made meaningful by the frame within which you have placed it; inside my frame (one dictated by an all-powerful being), science's best work are merely good guesses and speculations that try to finish the equation by plugging in astronomical numbers because it HAS to - there is no choice but to accept evolution's fantastic odds if one denies the existence of God. Don't you get that? As far as I'm concerned, you are as dogmatic and "clueless" to me as I must appear to you. But, since you've got "observable evidence" seemingly on your side, you think you've got the stronger position. To others who are standing on the same humanistic presupposition as you - you're winning; to those who are standing on the same presupposition as I (that God is real) your arguments hold no real force.

Again, that's a very silly factual error. Actual studies using real DNA and animals has long since exploded that notion.

The complexity of DNA is likened to the complexity of a computer program - computer programs do not write themselves - a designer does.

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 11:35 PM

1) You are not asking for a reply on a message board, you are asking for a medical school textbook. I obviously cannot deal with every structrure in the eye, as it is one of the most complicated organs in your body. It is not, however, irreducibly complex, even by the standards of the man who invented the concept. If such hypothetical assumptions are not good enough for you, I suggest you take a look at one of the many thousands of organisms whose eyes, when compared to our own, are missing structures. Here's one. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Smed.jpg) Those spots on the left-hand side are the equivalent of your eyes, minus every structure except a little bit of the retina. Perfectly functional. Here's another one. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Nautilus.jpg/600px-Nautilus.jpg) That's a very interesting one, actually. The eye of the nautalus is to your eye as a pinhole camera is to a Canon. There isn't any lens in other words.

Persuasive, but not definitive. That simplified forms of eyes exist does not necessarily mean that the human eye went through a comparable stage of evolution. And if you're telling me that I came from something like that then I have to tell you you're feeding me something no less fantastic than the idea of God doing all the creative work. I'm interested in your use of "the equivalent of your eyes" in your post; does "equivalent" mean that they are eyes, or that they are that particular creature's "equivalent" to my eye - like a claw is the "equivalent" to my hand?

2) A few million years, actually. Imperfect vision would absolutely not be a detriment to the first creature to develop it, because it would be competing with creatures who have absolutely no vision. This question is often postulated as "What good is half an eye?". I've already showed you a picture of a real creature with about 1% of an eye. What good is it? It's a hell of a lot better than none of an eye, evidently.

Maybe so. But none of this escapes the odds - and those cannot be argued away so easily.

But don't take my word for it, ask Richard Dawkins. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4)

I watched the video. Interesting. If Dawkins weren't so militant in his hostility towards religion, I might take him more seriously.

The Atheist

04-03-2007, 01:18 AM

Is that comment based on actually reviewing the evidence or hearsay? The "they don't have any" is a clear exaggeration. They have no less because they're using the same observable world as evolutionists.

Well, I've spoken to lots of creationists and I have yet to see any actual evidence presented by one. I see assertion, fallacy and rhetoric, but never evidence. If you feel that you have some, please let me know as I'm always open to seeing evidence.

Here we go again - the "hard evidence" position. Is that all reality is to you - that which you can see, hear, taste, touch and smell? *edit*Trying to posit a supernatural being on the basis that the alternative is only physical things Art, music, even.... heck, we're in a literature forum - not having a fairy in the sky doesn't diminish anything apart from church coffers.

When your lover says "I love you" to you, you cannot verify that s/he is telling the truth - you take it on faith, you assume (based on what you know, what you believe, what you wish) that those words are true. When you get married, you have no verifiable "proof" that your spouse will keep his/her vows - you assume s/he will do so and you will continue to do until you get "evidence" to the contrary.Do you guys learn this by rote?

I've seen all these *edit* questions before. They make no sense, see what I stated above. Also, just before you get too stuck on love and marriage - have a look at divorce statistics for christians. Hint: it isn't pretty.

OK - so books and articles have been written expressing a different opinion - that doesn't necessarily mean that my argument doesn't exist anymore - it means that someone else doesn't agree with it. Two interpretations exist - OK - now what?

On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.

On the other, wild assertions a series of texts known collectively as the "bible" and a total lack of facts and evidence.

Again, if you think there are any facts at all which shows that creationism isn't just a fairytale, let me know.

*edit*

billyjack's comment that nothing exists outside the universe implies that the universe generated itself. That is impossible. I detect some condescension in your final comment, but I'll ignore it for now.This is always the hardest for christians to understand - the need to replace "X" with "godidit". Unfortunately, there is no "before the universe" or "outside the universe", it just is what it is. Infinite regress is bunkum. *edit*

Fine - provide me with your sources and I'll happily retract my statement - since you yourself (I assume) would never concede an argument without "hard evidence" - right? Otherwise you're asking me to assume that you're trustworthy. So let's have your hard evidence that contradicts the numbers I posted.

This (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Intermediate_Forms_Between_Classes) is a really good place to start as it clearly shows how the algorithm relates to evolution and pretty much proves that evolution works, mathematically and physically.

As you will note, the chances of intermediate species due to evolution is 99.999999999927942% likely to be correct.

I'm quite happy to back up every statement with factual details.

Borel was a mathematician.Maybe he should have spent more time playing poker.

Here: "However, the initial difficulties of evolutionary theory so clearly laid out in many books, pale to insignificance when faced with the heroic difficulty of finally evolving a man. The noted scientists Francis Crick, L. M. Murkhin, and Carl Sagan have estimated that the difficulty of evolving a man by chance processes alone is 1 in 102,000,000,000—which Borel’s law says is no chance at all.14 (See below.) Indeed, a chance so small is not even conceivable. This is a figure with 2 billion zeroes after it and would require some ten thousand books, of one hundred and fifty pages just to write it out."
from What is the Probability of Evolution Occurring Solely by Natural Means?—Part Two by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon

Now I understand. That is an outrageous lie. I have no idea who "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon are, but I obviously know who Sagan and Crick were and I can assure you that if either of them were alive and that comment attributed to them, they would be seeing "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon in a court, suing them for a number with pages full of zeroes on it.

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but those people are plain lying. Ask either of them where Sagan or Crick said any such thing. Either the words have been twisted totally out of context or they have been made up. Suggesting that either of them thought the chances of evolution working as it has being small, is a lie. No grey area, a lie.

Francis Crick won a Nobel Prize, for his work for crying out loud. You yourself point out that small chance odds are unlikely - you think the Nobel Institute hands out prizes to complete idiots?

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;352561]So you say. Feel free to commence with the "demonstration" as to the "wrongness" of those numbers (which Carl Sagan - does he count as evolution scientist? - seems to have echoed above).

Ditto.

Not at all. You and I are arguing from two different presuppositional bases: yours says that there is no such being as God; as such, all your arguments and conclusions are stemming from that foundation.

Another Jack Chick tract-like statement. Demonstrably false. I am an atheist because the argument, the evidence and the likelihood of "god" existing are along the lines of those you and Borel are so enamoured of.

Saying that I started with a null hypothesis is nonsense.

In contrast, I am operating from the foundation that God is real and that He did all the creating; as such, all my arguments are stemming from that foundational conclusion.

Whereas your admission that you start with, "godidit" pretty much means where I know your "argument" is going to end up.

Don't act like you're any different; you've chosen a humanist foundation to argue from - therefore there is no "evidence" that I could give you that would change your position any more than you could change mine

Demonstrably incorrect.

I am on record in many places as stating that if I were to be given one - get that one; singular - piece of actual evidence as to a god's existence, I would be changing to a worshipper of that god immediately.

- the "evidence" you so love to tout is made meaningful by the frame within which you have placed it; inside my frame (one dictated by an all-powerful being), science's best work are merely good guesses and speculations

No, that's precisely what they're not. This is where religion really loses the plot, teaching you fallacies like this.

If christianity had even quarter of a clue, it would embrace science. Science, philosophy, you name it, every human endeavour wirth its salt started a sa result of religion. Not god/s, but religion. The bad news is that as science looked for god, they found answers which pointed to "not god". The churches have never got over it. You're being taught stuff by complete idiots by the sound of it. Science and mathematics deal in facts. 1 + 1 really does = 2. we're not living in The Matrix, we're living in a real world. If, at some stage, that real world shows up evidence pointing to "god", I'll buy it. There hasn't been any yet.

The complexity of DNA is likened to the complexity of a computer program - computer programs do not write themselves - a designer does.

Haha! Finish off with the computer argument! An improvement on bananas, I guess.

Why didn't refrigerators evolve? They are nowhere near as complex as DNA!

That is like asking me what two times green equals - it's a nothing statement which just emphasises the complete lack of evidence, commonsense, logic or facts surrounding the ID *edit*. If the best analogy is to compare rocks and watermelons, evolutionary science is safe.

Redzeppelin

04-03-2007, 11:30 AM

Well, I've spoken to lots of creationists and I have yet to see any actual evidence presented by one. I see assertion, fallacy and rhetoric, but never evidence. If you feel that you have some, please let me know as I'm always open to seeing evidence.

If I come across some, I'll send it your way - but would you even take it seriously? I don't tend to engage in the "battling evidence" game because I think "evidence" comes in a number of categories; some categories are irrefutable facts; other categories involve "reasonable hypotheses," "logical conclusions" and/or "facts" that require interpretation. As such, complete certainty as to the "truth" of certain types of evidence is contingent upon probability - and probability is not certainty. That is primarily what I'm arguing. Evolution - in the absence of the existence of God - is perfectly reasonable because it is the best hypothesis that explains our existence. I'm perfectly capable of seeing the logic of evolution - but that "logic" only holds water if I approach it from outside the framework of believing in a Divine Being.

Trying to posit a supernatural being on the basis that the alternative is only physical things is nuts. Art, music, even.... heck, we're in a literature forum - not having a fairy in the sky doesn't diminish anything apart from church coffers.

Your response reveals that you did not read my post very carefully. I did not suggest anything about the existence of God - I asked you if you judged the contents of reality based only upon that which is observable/experiencial - and you didn't answer the question. I'd prefer an answer rather than your attempts to belittle my questions.

Do you guys learn this by rote?

Not that I'm aware of.

I've seen all these meaningless questions before. They make no sense, see what I stated above. Also, just before you get too stuck on love and marriage - have a look at divorce statistics for christians. Hint: it isn't pretty.

Deflection. The example is valid - and if it's not, you have failed to explain why it's not. Your second comment is a non sequiter and has nothing to do with my posted comment.

On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.

Bravo - and has all of that "evidence" stood the test of time? Or has some of it required revision because - oops! - we discovered it was wrong.

On the other, wild assertions a series of texts known collectively as the "bible" and a total lack of facts and evidence.

Tit-for-tat: I've heard this tired charge a hundred times from other atheists. I'll quote you:

Do you guys learn this by rote?

The Bible wasn't written to perform as a science text-book. Books are written with a particular purpose/intent and audience. The Bible was written as a revelation of God's character. God, apparently, was not as concerned that human beings comprehend how He created what He created. Sorry.

Again, if you think there are any facts at all which shows that creationism isn't just a fairytale, let me know.

Any "facts" I might offer will be meaningless inside your frame of reference - just as my frame of reference makes many of your "facts" seem absurd to me - despite their status as "hard facts" from scientific investigation.

This is always the hardest for christians to understand - the need to replace "X" with "godidit". Unfortunately, there is no "before the universe" or "outside the universe", it just is what it is. Infinite regress is bunkum.

I'd like you to explain precisely how infinite regression (which involves the existence of actual infinities (which do not exist in reality)) is "bunkum" (is that a scientific term?). Instead of telling me where I should go to post, why don't you educate me by answering my questions? Explain to me where the universe came from, please.

This (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Intermediate_Forms_Between_Classes) is a really good place to start as it clearly shows how the algorithm relates to evolution and pretty much proves that evolution works, mathematically and physically.

As you will note, the chances of intermediate species due to evolution is 99.999999999927942% likely to be correct.

I'm sorry - I read through the link and saw nothing about odds or numbers. I saw a lot of talk about transitional life forms but that's it. Was that supposed to answer my question? It didn't. My original statement had to do with the mathematical odds of evolution. Care to try again?

I'm quite happy to back up every statement with factual details.

That's a good thing.

Maybe he should have spent more time playing poker.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Now I understand. That is an outrageous lie. I have no idea who "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon are, but I obviously know who Sagan and Crick were and I can assure you that if either of them were alive and that comment attributed to them, they would be seeing "Drs" Ankerberg and Weldon in a court, suing them for a number with pages full of zeroes on it.

OK - then could you direct me to the source that would show that the Drs are lying - something more substantial than just your opinion?

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but those people are plain lying. Ask either of them where Sagan or Crick said any such thing. Either the words have been twisted totally out of context or they have been made up. Suggesting that either of them thought the chances of evolution working as it has being small, is a lie. No grey area, a lie.

I don't need to defend the doctors - they can defend themselves. I'd like you to show me how they're misquoting/lying, please.

Francis Crick won a Nobel Prize, for his work for crying out loud. You yourself point out that small chance odds are unlikely - you think the Nobel Institute hands out prizes to complete idiots?

Not at all - believing in evolution does not indicate "idiocy" at all. I think very intelligent people accept it as true.

Another Jack Chick tract-like statement. Demonstrably false. I am an atheist because the argument, the evidence and the likelihood of "god" existing are along the lines of those you and Borel are so enamoured of.

How is my suggestion of presuppositional foundations "demonstrably false"? I'd like you to "demonstrate" (as your verb implies) how my suggestion is false. Atheism becomes reasonable once one rejects the reality of God. You must reject God first in order to embrace atheism.

Saying that I started with a null hypothesis is nonsense.

The only nonsense that I can see here is your refusal to accept that human beings are incapable of full objectivity - and that we are all subject to various "filters" through which we process what we call reality.

Whereas your admission that you start with, "godidit" pretty much means where I know your "argument" is going to end up.

Congratulations.

Demonstrably incorrect.

I am on record in many places as stating that if I were to be given one - get that one; singular - piece of actual evidence as to a god's existence, I would be changing to a worshipper of that god immediately.

"Demonstrate" away, then. "Evidence" for the existence of God negates faith; once you can prove God, faith is unnecessary and that works against the plan God has for our development as human beings into the creatures He designed us to be. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. You cannot have an automechanic give you psychological counseling. Likewise - the spiritual reality of God cannot be discerned via the "objective" tools of scientific inquiry.

No, that's precisely what they're not. This is where religion really loses the plot, teaching you fallacies like this.

Maybe I overstate the speculative nature of science's discoveries, but the main thrust of my post stands: facts make sense inside a framework.

If christianity had even quarter of a clue, it would embrace science. Science, philosophy, you name it, every human endeavour wirth its salt started a sa result of religion. Not god/s, but religion. The bad news is that as science looked for god, they found answers which pointed to "not god". The churches have never got over it. You're being taught stuff by complete idiots by the sound of it. Science and mathematics deal in facts. 1 + 1 really does = 2. we're not living in The Matrix, we're living in a real world. If, at some stage, that real world shows up evidence pointing to "god", I'll buy it. There hasn't been any yet.

We don't reject science; we question its conclusions when they come into conflict with what the Bible teaches (especially when the conclusions are based on hypothesis and probablility [probability with massive odds]). From your current position, evidence of God would be meaningless to you. You have to "open" to the idea of God for Him to even start becoming real to you.

Haha! Finish off with the computer argument! An improvement on bananas, I guess.
Why didn't refrigerators evolve? They are nowhere near as complex as DNA!

Once again, you've avoided addressing the issue. For someone with such a "superior" position - one bolstered by mountains of evidence, you are surprisingly unwilling to answer my questions. Why is that? Is dismissing questions some sort of effective arguing technique? Can't you deal with the points I'm making? Your making humor at my expense does little to advance your argument because I'm seeking answers.

That is like asking me what two times green equals - it's a nothing statement which just emphasises the complete lack of evidence, commonsense, logic or facts surrounding the ID. If the best analogy is to compare rocks and watermelons, evolutionary science is safe.

Ditto here. You've not addressed the point - only deflected it off somewhere else. Instead of crowing about how silly, predictable or whatever my points are, why don't you simply provide me with the counter-argument or explanation that would show me the error of my thinking?

Scheherazade

04-03-2007, 11:32 AM

Warning

Please do not use inflammatory language in your arguments to belittle other members personally or their arguments/beliefs.

billyjack

04-03-2007, 11:42 AM

Here, let me help you a bit. "Magic" has nothing to do with God - in fact, if you do your research, you will find that "magic" is the human attempt to imitate the creative power of God. The existence of magic actually alludes to the existence of God via its attempt to mimic His power.
.

1) mimicking the creative power of god as magic. . .is the bible magic then? man created it, but it mimicks god...

i could attempt to mimmick big foot. that doesnt make him real. alluding to existence does not prove existence.

watkinsguy

04-03-2007, 11:45 AM

no comment lol... I think Red has this one :)

Redzeppelin

04-03-2007, 11:54 AM

1) mimicking the creative power of god as magic. . .is the bible magic then? man created it, but it mimicks god...

No No No: the Bible does not "mimic" God - it reveals Him and His character, His divine plan for the redemption of mankind.

i could attempt to mimmick big foot. that doesnt make him real. alluding to existence does not prove existence.

I didn't post that comment as a definitive proof of the existence of God - and I certainly wouldn't expect you to accept it - but from inside the presuppositional framework of a believer, that's what magic is.

andave_ya

04-03-2007, 01:52 PM

I've been reading the latest posts on the thread and would like to join in the discussion, if I may. Most of this stuff goes way over my head but the evolution/creation debate is something that interests me intensely. I've presented speeches and essays on the topic from the creationist standpoint; I am a creationist and a traditional Christian.

I won't try to debate on the philosophical level because I am in no way qualified to speak on that level.

Completely incorrect. That is a fallacy which you've heard or seen somewhere and it's been told to you by someone who has no understanding of evolution or mathematics - it's simply outrageously incorrect As I stated above, actual evolutionary scientists and mathematicians can show you that the exact opposite is true.

May I have names please? I'd like to research that.

On one hand, we have the weight of hundreds of years of scientifically-gathered evidence.

What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man?

Nor did they ever. Eveolutionary changes happen over millennia, not months. Plus, if you go and check some actual facts, you will be able to see that we do indeed have physical evidence of mutations, but in lower animals, which are able to evolve more readily thanks to their basic structure. Again, this supports evolution, not the other way round.

Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?

"Evidence" for the existence of God negates faith; once you can prove God, faith is unnecessary and that works against the plan God has for our development as human beings into the creatures He designed us to be.

I've never heard it said so succinctly before; may I quote you?

cuppajoe_9

04-03-2007, 04:29 PM

What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man???? What about them?

Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?Yes, they are only very rarely beneficial, but the ones that are beneficial tend to stick around. This is why evolution takes so long. As for specifics: HIV, which I imagine you've heard of, speciated within the last century as a result of beneficial mutation (beneficial to the virus, that is, not to us).

Redzeppelin

04-03-2007, 05:20 PM

Yes, they are only very rarely beneficial, but the ones that are beneficial tend to stick around. This is why evolution takes so long. As for specifics: HIV, which I imagine you've heard of, speciated within the last century as a result of beneficial mutation (beneficial to the virus, that is, not to us).

This kind of "one step forward two steps" progression of mutations seems mighty questionable: if the majority of mutations are negative (as you seem to be saying here), then how is it logical that a minority of positive mutations could sustain life? Are we to assume that all positive mutations were a "first try" (because some negative mutations, I'm guessing, would result in the death of the life form). I'm speaking rather simplistically here, but considering the idea philosophically, how can progress occur when the odds for positive movement are largely minor (and - like much of evolution, requires immense time and seemingly insurmountable odds).

Second, it's interesting how you've defined "beneficial" here - it's all about perspective, I guess. Since HIV involves mutations that are hostile to life (because once the host is dead, HIV has nohwere to go) I would say that its mutation is generally negative in nature.

The Atheist

04-03-2007, 06:01 PM

If I come across some, I'll send it your way - but would you even take it seriously? I don't tend to engage in the "battling evidence" game because I think "evidence" comes in a number of categories; some categories are irrefutable facts; other categories involve "reasonable hypotheses," "logical conclusions" and/or "facts" that require interpretation. As such, complete certainty as to the "truth" of certain types of evidence is contingent upon probability - and probability is not certainty. That is primarily what I'm arguing. Evolution - in the absence of the existence of God - is perfectly reasonable because it is the best hypothesis that explains our existence. I'm perfectly capable of seeing the logic of evolution - but that "logic" only holds water if I approach it from outside the framework of believing in a Divine Being.

Well, I see your problem entirely.

You note in several places that you're unable to accept facts unless they fit into your god-centric view of the universe. Accordingly, why are we even discussing this? If I point you to facts which you refuse to acknowledge, why bother seeking them?

Evidence only comes in two varieties - that which has been tested and re-tested by peers and become accepted and that which hasn't.

Your response reveals that you did not read my post very carefully. I did not suggest anything about the existence of God - I asked you if you judged the contents of reality based only upon that which is observable/experiencial - and you didn't answer the question. I'd prefer an answer rather than your attempts to belittle my questions.

I did answer it, but I will again, briefly.

There is more to reality than observation. Any slight understanding of quantum physics would show this. Did you/are you doing science at school? These questions you're asking are the same as the ones I deal with when my seven year old asks questions. Reality is what it is. This is a Phil 101 discussion and not really worth my time.

Reality is a combination of science and philosophy. Obviously the philosophical points cannot be proven, but the science can. When the two complement each other, we find truth. When they contradict, we either lean to the scientific, or we deny facts.

Deflection. The example is valid - and if it's not, you have failed to explain why it's not. Your second comment is a non sequiter and has nothing to do with my posted comment.

Completely incorrect.

My point was that love is fickle, and demonstrably so. People marry "till death us do part" then get divorced. Love is a chemical reaction in your brain + habit. Nothing more.

Using "love" as any basis for faith is unenforceable.

Bravo - and has all of that "evidence" stood the test of time? Or has some of it required revision because - oops! - we discovered it was wrong.

See, this is where you go wrong. The fact that science has been wrong and had to change is a strength, not a weakness. Science changes with evidence. It is reviewed and constantly updated as new discoveries are made.

Does religion?

The Bible wasn't written to perform as a science text-book. Books are written with a particular purpose/intent and audience. The Bible was written as a revelation of God's character. God, apparently, was not as concerned that human beings comprehend how He created what He created. Sorry.

But you need to remember that science grew out of man's quest for answers. To deny science is to deny the bible.

Any "facts" I might offer will be meaningless inside your frame of reference - just as my frame of reference makes many of your "facts" seem absurd to me - despite their status as "hard facts" from scientific investigation.No. I have stated times without number that I am open to evidence.

I'd like you to explain precisely how infinite regression (which involves the existence of actual infinities (which do not exist in reality)) is "bunkum" (is that a scientific term?). Instead of telling me where I should go to post, why don't you educate me by answering my questions? Explain to me where the universe came from, please.

I can't. I have no idea, nor do I care. Asking me to explain something which happened 15+ billion years ago, for which an actual science has been around for a century or so isn't feasible.

Given time, there will be answers, but to expect one now doesn't work. If lack of knowledge of what caused the big bang leads you to god, that's fine, but you have no need to ignore all of the facts we know about the universe and life since then.

I'm sorry - I read through the link and saw nothing about odds or numbers. I saw a lot of talk about transitional life forms but that's it. Was that supposed to answer my question? It didn't. My original statement had to do with the mathematical odds of evolution. Care to try again?

OK. Because you asked, I had assumed you would be able to do advanced calculus. If you could, the algorithm can be gleaned fromt he results there. If you can't anything I post is going to be meaningless, and I can't post LaTex superscript here, so I can't give you the equation.

If you are able to work with calculus and are likely to believe the results, please PM me and I will send you more data, but please don't waste my time if you won't understand it.

OK - then could you direct me to the source that would show that the Drs are lying - something more substantial than just your opinion?

Ditto, once you can work out the algorithm for yourself, you'll see that they are not only lying, but stating enormous lies.

No opinion involved, the facts are there, if you choose to accept them.

I don't need to defend the doctors - they can defend themselves. I'd like you to show me how they're misquoting/lying, please.

Ditto.

Not at all - believing in evolution does not indicate "idiocy" at all. I think very intelligent people accept it as true.

I guess that depends on your view of "intelligent". To me, an "intelligent" person will look at evidence and be able to separate fact from fantasy. I know no intelligent people - on that basis - who do not believe that evolution is real. Many of those who accept the fact of evolution are christians.

How is my suggestion of presuppositional foundations "demonstrably false"? I'd like you to "demonstrate" (as your verb implies) how my suggestion is false. Atheism becomes reasonable once one rejects the reality of God. You must reject God first in order to embrace atheism.

No, you simply do not understand.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god - a position that no, or insufficient evidence is available to support belief in god. Lack of god is a result of a search for evidence, not a starting point. You yourself admit that everything starts with a god. I, on the other hand start with an open page, which may include god. As the page is filled up and none of it points to "god", I become an atheist.

Atheism is not a reverse religion.

Atheism is reasonable on its own with nil suppositions and assumptions.

The only nonsense that I can see here is your refusal to accept that human beings are incapable of full objectivity - and that we are all subject to various "filters" through which we process what we call reality.

Mate, you need to realise that The Matrix was only a movie. Reality is real. How you perceive it does not affect how it actually is. Can I suggest you take a very elementary Philosophy course, because your questions are really basic stuff. Schrodinger's cat et al.

"Demonstrate" away, then. "Evidence" for the existence of God negates faith; once you can prove God, faith is unnecessary and that works against the plan God has for our development as human beings into the creatures He designed us to be. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. You cannot have an automechanic give you psychological counseling. Likewise - the spiritual reality of God cannot be discerned via the "objective" tools of scientific inquiry.

The Babel Fish!

Instead of giving you a pat answer to your pat comment, I'll ask a question:

If everything is part of god's master plan, why do you see the need to try to tell other people about your disbelief of science? If it's all god's master plan, then he must have wanted us to accept scientific fact.

Or are all scientists agents of Satan?

Maybe I overstate the speculative nature of science's discoveries, but the main thrust of my post stands: facts make sense inside a framework.

Unfortunately, facts don't work like that. Things aren't true because you want them to be, they either are or they aren't

We don't reject science; we question its conclusions when they come into conflict with what the Bible teaches (especially when the conclusions are based on hypothesis and probablility [probability with massive odds]). From your current position, evidence of God would be meaningless to you. You have to "open" to the idea of God for Him to even start becoming real to you.

See, again, you're dismissing facts which don't gel with your god. I can't change that, but it saddens me.

I will reiterate my comments about the odds, however.

Please, either learn calculus and work it out yourself, or don't quote false statements.

Once again, you've avoided addressing the issue. For someone with such a "superior" position - one bolstered by mountains of evidence, you are surprisingly unwilling to answer my questions. Why is that? Is dismissing questions some sort of effective arguing technique? Can't you deal with the points I'm making? Your making humor at my expense does little to advance your argument because I'm seeking answers.

Given your own statements that facts which don't fit with your view of god can be ignored, I don't believe you.

I don't believe you are seeking answers at all. I believe you've been taught a load of fallacies by a pastor and have come in here to parrot them. Not one comment of your so far has suggested that you are seeking to learn anything at all and I doubt your ability to learn if you won't address facts.

In the case of why a computer program is cunningly designed and life isn't, you can only get trite answers, because it's not a real question. It is, as I said, like asking what blue squared is. The two have nothing to do with each other. In what way does a computer program resemble life? Both are complex, so couldn't exist without design? That's wrong and you know it.

Ditto here. You've not addressed the point - only deflected it off somewhere else. Instead of crowing about how silly, predictable or whatever my points are, why don't you simply provide me with the counter-argument or explanation that would show me the error of my thinking?

Impossible. I point you to facts and you ignore them. I have tried to address the point and you fail to spend any time looking for answers yourself. You cannot be helped because, in reality, you don't want to be. Your faith is a little shaky and for some reason you seem to think that coming in here and denying evidence will strengthen your faith. I've indulged your fantasy long enough.

I am now done with this discussion, so in the unlikely event that you do have a desire to learn, send me a PM and I will show you how to find those facts, but as I stated above, your constant refusal to look at evidence only as long as long as you posit "god" first isn't a search for evidence at all, it's a time-wasting ploy and I'm not about to waste more of my valuable time playing it. You're welcome to take that as a victory, as fundies usually do, but the victory is really in your admission that evidence only exists which accommodates god.

Cheers.

The Atheist

04-03-2007, 06:05 PM

Again, specifics please. Hasn't it been said that mutations are rarely beneficial?

Did you go to the link I showed Red?

As someone already noted, the fact that mutations are rarely beneficial is pretty obvious - those which aren't become extinct and those which are survive.

Given that you're a creationist, how do you explain all of the extinct species?

Edit - as to names of people to read to refute the wildly incorrect odds quoted, I suggest starting with Francis Crick himself and read as much of his work as you can

Redzeppelin

04-03-2007, 06:27 PM

These questions you're asking are the same as the ones I deal with when my seven year old asks questions. Reality is what it is. This is a Phil 101 discussion and not really worth my time.

Can I suggest you take a very elementary Philosophy course, because your questions are really basic stuff. Schrodinger's cat et al.

I doubt your ability to learn if you won't address facts.

Your faith is a little shaky and for some reason you seem to think that coming in here and denying evidence will strengthen your faith. I've indulged your fantasy long enough.

I am now done with this discussion, so in the unlikely event that you do have a desire to learn, send me a PM and I will show you how to find those facts, but as I stated above, your constant refusal to look at evidence only as long as long as you posit "god" first isn't a search for evidence at all, it's a time-wasting ploy and I'm not about to waste more of my valuable time playing it. You're welcome to take that as a victory, as fundies usually do, but the victory is really in your admission that evidence only exists which accommodates god.

Cheers.

The boldfaced line is a stereotype and is in poor form coming from an educated person.

I'll have to pass on your offer of "education," thanks. But, in view of your generosity, I will reciprocate: if you ever want to truly understand the God who rules the universe, feel free to send me a PM and I will be happy to lift you out of your elementary understanding of the Almighty. It's the least I could do.

Cheers. :)

cuppajoe_9

04-03-2007, 06:49 PM

Are we to assume that all positive mutations were a "first try" (because some negative mutations, I'm guessing, would result in the death of the life form).Yes, some mutations do result in the death of the individual organism, thereby removing that mutation from the gene pool. However, when a beneficial mutation occurs, the organism that it occurs in has (by definition) an evolutionary advantage, and therefore that mutation spreads throughout the gene pool. Mutations occur in individuals, not species. A harmful mutation in one individual has almost no chance of causing the extinction of the entire species (which is what I assume you mean by "the death of the lifeform").

I'm speaking rather simplistically here, but considering the idea philosophically, how can progress occur when the odds for positive movement are largely minor (and - like much of evolution, requires immense time and seemingly insurmountable odds).Because when a beneficial mutation does occur, that gene is rewarded with more copies of itself; and when a harmful mutation does occur, the gene in question is punished by extinction. The odds are indeed long, but one-in-a-million odds aren't so bad when you're allowed several billion trials and several billion years with which to work.

cuppajoe_9

04-03-2007, 06:52 PM

Second, it's interesting how you've defined "beneficial" here - it's all about perspective, I guess. Since HIV involves mutations that are hostile to life (because once the host is dead, HIV has nohwere to go) I would say that its mutation is generally negative in nature.Negative to you, maybe, absolutely wonderful for the virus. Once the host is dead, it likely has a few billion HIVs in it, and has more than likely passed it on to another host. If this was not true, you would never have heard of HIV.

Redzeppelin

04-03-2007, 07:14 PM

Negative to you, maybe, absolutely wonderful for the virus. Once the host is dead, it likely has a few billion HIVs in it, and has more than likely passed it on to another host. If this was not true, you would never have heard of HIV.

Fair enough; I kind of sensed that the point I was making would result in this answer.

andave_ya

04-04-2007, 08:43 PM

I read the article you suggested, The Atheist, but before I began I was inclined to doubt its veracity because it's a Wikipedia article and anyone, trained and untrained, is free to get in there and edit it. The article itself was full of unecessary jargon and I would like to know who is the "we" of whom the author speaks.
Furthermore, if there is such an influx of missing links, how come I've never heard of them before? Even Darwin said that the fact of the missing links is the weakest point in his theory.

For me, the extinction of the dinosaurs is explained by this verse from the Bible:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Genesis 7:11

Of course this verse is talking about the flood. Since the fountains of the great deep broke up and the windows of heaven were opened, the climate and atmosphere of the world changed and was unable to support the dinosaurs; so, soon after, they became extinct.

I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.

What about the Cro-Magnon man? the Java Man? the Neanderthal Man?

??? What about them?

The Atheist said we have hundreds of years of scientifically proven fact. The Cro-Magnon, Java, and Neanderthal Men were all thought to be missing links until they were proven to be forgeries and fakes. In such an important matter as science, one loses veracity by deliberately suppressing or misleading the scientific community.

To deny science is to deny the bible.

That's creationist thinking and I think Redzeppelin already said that the Bible and science are not incompatible. Did you mean to say it that way or did I misunderstand you? Sorry.

Unfortunately, facts don't work like that. Things aren't true because you want them to be, they either are or they aren't

Precisely! Now how does that fit in with the whole forged embryo mess?

cuppajoe_9

04-04-2007, 08:53 PM

The Cro-Magnon, Java, and Neanderthal Men were all thought to be missing links until they were proven to be forgeries and fakes. In such an important matter as science, one loses veracity by deliberately suppressing or misleading the scientific community.Well, the jury is still out on Java Man (or men, rather, there were two different specimens), but it certainly wasn't an intentional forgery. Cro-magnons and Neanderthals aren't individual finds, but rather entire species. Neaderthals aren't a missing link between anything, they're simply antoher species of ape, now extinct. No word on either of those species having been forgeries. You're postulating a rather large conspiracy if you claim that they are.

The "missing link" betwen humans and other apes is not a scientifically valid concept, and is in any case unnecesary, as we can compare human and chimpanzee genomes to determine common ancestry.

billyjack

04-04-2007, 09:04 PM

Furthermore, if there is such an influx of missing links, how come I've never heard of them before? Even Darwin said that the fact of the missing links is the weakest point in his theory.

I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.

?

1)darwin said the missing links were the weakest part of his theory, this is true. but that was over a hundred years ago. since then, we've found austrolopithacean (lucy) and even a few pre-lucy's (name eludes me).

2) so people lived for 300 years on average pre-floud thanks to the climate? the world as it is today is full of all the climates on the spectrum. no one lives past 120. our medicine is head and shoulders above the medicine of old too. so why would people live longer back then?

Reccura

04-04-2007, 11:21 PM

Because, (I think) The Earth was healthier then. Just look at the state of our world, Billy (hello)

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 12:04 AM

1)darwin said the missing links were the weakest part of his theory, this is true. but that was over a hundred years ago. since then, we've found austrolopithacean (lucy) and even a few pre-lucy's (name eludes me).

The return of the "missing link." I've been doing so thinking and reading on this subject and I think the dismissal of the importance of transitional/intermediate forms is more important than (at least some) evolutionists seem to want to admit. First off, I don't believe there is such thing as a "missing link/transitional form" in terms of singular. Since most living creatures (including microscopic creatures) are composed of multiple intricate/interrelated systems that often must function together to function at all, then it seems logical to assume that there should be many many transitional forms to allow for the multiple alterations that many (if not all ) forms of life had to go through to become what they currently are. Since the process apparently went on for millenium after millenium, it seems logical that the fossil record should (must) be littered with numerous transitional forms to indicate the various stages that the creature went through. I'm doubtful science can come up with those forms - their number must be in the millions. I get cuppajoe's argument that "common ancestry" can be established, but the "6 degrees of separation" phenomenon pretty much establishes that being related isn't necessarily a linear progression (as I think he's implying).

The Atheist

04-05-2007, 12:39 AM

Of course this verse is talking about the flood. Since the fountains of the great deep broke up and the windows of heaven were opened, the climate and atmosphere of the world changed and was unable to support the dinosaurs; so, soon after, they became extinct.

I realize you probably don't think a flood happened at all, but this is how I see it. Proof for the climate-change theory can be provided in part by the decline in the longevity of the people. Before the flood people routinely lived to at least 300; the oldest man lived to his mid-to-late 900s.

Same applies as I said to Red.

If you're actually able to believe that a global flood happened, then you clearly have no knowledge of reason, science, or physics and no understanding of what facts or evidence actually are.

There is a level of wilful disregard for scientific fact at which I have no interest. Belief in a the Noah's Ark/global flood far surpasses my tolerance level.

I hope you have a pleasant discussion.

The Atheist

04-05-2007, 12:42 AM

Because, (I think) The Earth was healthier then. Just look at the state of our world, Billy (hello)

And yet all scientific evidence points to ever-increasing longevity of humans. Funny how all of the remains, bodies from peat-bogs and tombs, which match, or pre-date biblical times have been under 70 years of age at death.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 12:43 AM

Hi there, Mr. Atheist -

I think it was Einstein who said (roughly paraphrased) that "creativity is more important than intellect."

Trust me, we'll enjoy our discussion.

billyjack

04-05-2007, 09:53 AM

. I'm doubtful science can come up with those forms - their number must be in the millions. I get cuppajoe's argument that "common ancestry" can be established, but the "6 degrees of separation" phenomenon pretty much establishes that being related isn't necessarily a linear progression (as I think he's implying).

agreed. the phrase should have been missing link(s). evolutionary evidence has come up with forms of our ancestors carbon dated to 4.4 million years ago: Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus, austrolopithicus, homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo sapien, us. there arent millions of forms between where man's ancestor split from the primates because small changes in each type's body chemistry don't neccessitate an entirely knew type of animal. for example, modern humans have infinite numbers of bodily differences within races, but we still call all of them humans. major differences like body composition and size as well as bone structure, brain size, reliance on olfactory sensing, and tool making are what seperate the types of our ancestors. as far as the relation of these forms being more similar to kevin bacon's relation to winona judd rather than your relation to your great grandfather, just check the carbon dating evidence.

Pendragon

04-05-2007, 10:04 AM

Well, I personally see no reason for me to stir the pot further than anything that I have said before, which is that I believe that God created the Earth and everything in it and we evolved from that point into what we are today. I cannot believe in chance as the start of all things given that you must give it infinite tries to make it work. I choose to believe in God. You may choose to believe in whatsoever you wish. I do not choose to waste my time in trivial arguments. I think we should start taking care of this planet before we lose our home, no matter how we believe it came to be here. May God bless everyone one of you, even those who do not believe in Him. Adieu.

Pen

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 12:35 PM

agreed. the phrase should have been missing link(s). evolutionary evidence has come up with forms of our ancestors carbon dated to 4.4 million years ago: Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus, austrolopithicus, homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus, homo sapien, us. there arent millions of forms between where man's ancestor split from the primates because small changes in each type's body chemistry don't neccessitate an entirely knew type of animal. for example, modern humans have infinite numbers of bodily differences within races, but we still call all of them humans. major differences like body composition and size as well as bone structure, brain size, reliance on olfactory sensing, and tool making are what seperate the types of our ancestors. as far as the relation of these forms being more similar to kevin bacon's relation to winona judd rather than your relation to your great grandfather, just check the carbon dating evidence.

There are creatures in nature that have no know predecessors - evolution cannot account for them. As well, there are characteristics of many creatures that - if they had to occur over millenia with multiple tries (since the majority of mutations are harmful) - that would have effectively destroyed the species before it could have "learned" to alter itself. And, how does an entity like a plant "learn" or "realize" it needs to mutate? How - even at a molecular level - do these things "figure out" and "instigate" such change?

billyjack

04-05-2007, 02:13 PM

There are creatures in nature that have no know predecessors - evolution cannot account for them. As well, there are characteristics of many creatures that - if they had to occur over millenia with multiple tries (since the majority of mutations are harmful) - that would have effectively destroyed the species before it could have "learned" to alter itself. And, how does an entity like a plant "learn" or "realize" it needs to mutate? How - even at a molecular level - do these things "figure out" and "instigate" such change?

no known predessors could mean two things: none have been found with fossil evidence OR this creature is so ancient and successful that its been basically the same for millions of years (crocs)--so there really is no evidence that is unearthable, its buried too deep.

species don't learn to alter themselves anymore than you learn to breath. it just happens genetically. you didnt have to think you hair red did you? (assuming that by red zepellin your hair is red, sorry if i'm way off). species aren't destroyed when a negative mutation takes place. instead, that individual with the bad mutations chances of reproducing are reduced because it wont get mated with or it dies before it can get laid.

same goes with plants. they don't learn anything. they just do it. how did you learn to open and close your hand? you didn't. you just do it. same with plants. mutations happen for 2 reasons: inheritance and acquired. for our purposes, the latter is what we need to focus on. it happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division. in this case, the cell doesnt know what to do. when this happens, the cell must guess at it. some guesses are good, some bad. but the cell doesnt need to "Know" or "figure out" anymore than an acorn needs to figure out how to become an oak, it just does it.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 02:37 PM

no known predessors could mean two things: none have been found with fossil evidence OR this creature is so ancient and successful that its been basically the same for millions of years (crocs)--so there really is no evidence that is unearthable, its buried too deep.

species don't learn to alter themselves anymore than you learn to breath. it just happens genetically. you didnt have to think you hair red did you? (assuming that by red zepellin your hair is red, sorry if i'm way off). species aren't destroyed when a negative mutation takes place. instead, that individual with the bad mutations chances of reproducing are reduced because it wont get mated with or it dies before it can get laid.

same goes with plants. they don't learn anything. they just do it. how did you learn to open and close your hand? you didn't. you just do it. same with plants. mutations happen for 2 reasons: inheritance and acquired. for our purposes, the latter is what we need to focus on. it happens when environmental agents damage DNA, or when mistakes occur when a cell copies its DNA prior to cell division. in this case, the cell doesnt know what to do. when this happens, the cell must guess at it. some guesses are good, some bad. but the cell doesnt need to "Know" or "figure out" anymore than an acorn needs to figure out how to become an oak, it just does it.

Bolding by Redzeppelin

The stuff I bold-faced is the problem that evolution cannot answer. Nothing "just does" anything; if life is accidental, then we need an explanation as to why creatures (especially plants) altered. Why must a cell "guess" and what says it should even have such a capability as the ability to do "trial and error" problem solving? That's what evolution cannot answer. We cannot go from the first protein (or whatever it was) into making alterations that help an entity survive without some sort of explanation as to why the thing would even try to survive at all. It "just happens" is no more credible than the idea of a Divine Being creating life.

Matrim Cuathon

04-05-2007, 02:57 PM

your not going to get brilliant answers from an online forum, so i suggest that you dont use this discussion to bolster belief in creation or evolution. but, there are particles called free radicals which are discussed in gerontology that might be what causes alterations in DNA. cells dont know to improve it happens on accident. then those creatures which gain good changes survive to reproduce more and so do their descendants until the become the common species.

billyjack

04-05-2007, 03:06 PM

The stuff I bold-faced is the problem that evolution cannot answer. Nothing "just does" anything; if life is accidental, then we need an explanation as to why creatures (especially plants) altered. Why must a cell "guess" and what says it should even have such a capability as the ability to do "trial and error" problem solving? That's what evolution cannot answer. We cannot go from the first protein (or whatever it was) into making alterations that help an entity survive without some sort of explanation as to why the thing would even try to survive at all. It "just happens" is no more credible than the idea of a Divine Being creating life.

everything just does everything. your hair is part of you, right. do you think about growing it. no, it just does it. just doing it does not mean accidental nor does it mean the "just doing" is not understood. it just means it can't be described effectively with words. you understand how to grow your hair, i know this because you do it. of course you can't explain how you do this, but you do it. same goes with opening and closing your hand. how do you do it? please don't try to explain. you'd have to type for days just to explain exactly what is going on to move your pinky.

why wouldnt a cell guess? what about when a cell's supposed to take a step with its left foot, figuratively speaking (cells have no feet), and there's no left foot there. . .well then, the cell with have to improvise. it will have to hop on its right foot so to speak.

cells arent thinking in terms of "trial and error." that is how we interpret their behavior from our standpoint. each cell is simply doing what it does. saying we lack a knowledge of cell "thought" isnt a hole in the evolutionary argument. its just you being anthropocentric. we know tons of stuff about human pregancy, but that doesnt mean we know if the sperm who almost made it to the egg feels bummed out.

thing is, "it just happens" happens all the time, every day, every moment. it just happens is saying we can't desribe it, but there it is. god creating the universe has only one of these "it just happens qualities." the exact opposite of "it just happens" actually: you can describe it, but there its not.

i'd rather have my beliefs lacking in description than lacking in existence. words are fickle anyways

The Atheist

04-05-2007, 04:33 PM

Hi there, Mr. Atheist -

I think it was Einstein who said (roughly paraphrased) that "creativity is more important than intellect."

Trust me, we'll enjoy our discussion.

We won't - I've done it countless times before and the rare instance of a person starting to think is far outweighed by the refusal of the majority to use their brains.

Pass, thanks.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 04:40 PM

We won't - I've done it countless times before and the rare instance of a person starting to think is far outweighed by the refusal of the majority to use their brains.

Pass, thanks.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. We'll try to muddle through as best we can.

cuppajoe_9

04-05-2007, 05:26 PM

Hold on, I do believe we're on to something:

First off, I don't believe there is such thing as a "missing link/transitional form" in terms of singular. As any credible biologist will tell you, there most certainly is not.

Since most living creatures (including microscopic creatures) are composed of multiple intricate/interrelated systems that often must function together to function at all, then it seems logical to assume that there should be many many transitional forms to allow for the multiple alterations that many (if not all ) forms of life had to go through to become what they currently are. Since the process apparently went on for millenium after millenium, it seems logical that the fossil record should (must) be littered with numerous transitional forms to indicate the various stages that the creature went through.Wonderful. This is exactly what the theory of evolution by natural selection predicts.

I'm doubtful science can come up with those forms - their number must be in the millions.Of course not every transitional form can be dug up. Fossilization is relatively rare, and many entire species have no doubt gone extinct without leaving any evidence that we can turn up. However, it is not necessary to turn up all transitional forms, so long as the theory can be supplemented with other evidence, such as genome analysis (and it can). It is, however, granted that every transitional form discovered adds strength to the theory. So how many transitional fossils have been discovered? A lot. Here's a severly abbreviated list on the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils). Here is several hundred pages worth of transitional forms just for certain fish (http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/140Sarcopterygii/140.000.html), and if you read the entire thing I will be very impressed.

Saying that the theory of evolution is unsaisfactory because not all transitional forms can be discovered would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 05:41 PM

Of course not every transitional form can be dug up. Fossilization is relatively rare, and many entire species have no doubt gone extinct without leaving any evidence that we can turn up. However, it is not necessary to turn up all transitional forms, so long as the theory can be supplemented with other evidence, such as genome analysis (and it can). It is, however, granted that every transitional form discovered adds strength to the theory. So how many transitional fossils have been discovered? A lot. Here's a severly abbreviated list on the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils). Here is several hundred pages worth of transitional forms just for certain fish (http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/140Sarcopterygii/140.000.html), and if you read the entire thing I will be very impressed.

Saying that the theory of evolution is unsaisfactory because not all transitional forms can be discovered would, of course, be an argument from ignorance.

I'm aware that transitional fossils (or at least what is interpreted to be transitional fossils) exist - but I'm questioning the reality that the necessary changes required for every creature to go through for every specific modification that allows that creature to do what it specifically (and often uniquely) can do, should point to an endless supply of transitional fossils. Even if you argue that away, we still have to deal with the fact that there are certain characteristics of creatures that could not have developed slowly or by steps because either a) the lack of this characteristic would have resulted in the death of the creature because the characteristic if fundamental to the creature's life, or b) the lethal nature of some of the creature's defense systems would have resulted in the death of the creature during prior "flawed" mutations.

As much as I'd like to impress you, like yourself, I've got far too much reading and - as a liberal arts guy - I have extreme difficulty wading through dense scientific texts. I'll peruse a bit, but I've got papers to grade.

And yes, I may be arguing from ignorance, but how is evolution's arguing from a serious lack of said evidence any more credible? The theory is touted as being "factual" by many - yet the existence of a large and convincing body of transitional form evidence is incomplete - and perhaps, at best, merely suggestive rather than conclusive.

cuppajoe_9

04-05-2007, 05:47 PM

'm aware that transitional fossils (or at least what is interpreted to be transitional fossils) exist - but I'm questioning the reality that the necessary changes required for every creature to go through for every specific modification that allows that creature to do what it specifically (and often uniquely) can do, should point to an endless supply of transitional fossils.In a perfect world, everything that died would be fossilised, and you would have your endless supply. The world, sadly, is quite imperfect and almost nothing gets fossilised.

Even if you argue that away, we still have to deal with the fact that there are certain characteristics of creatures that could not have developed slowly or by steps because either a) the lack of this characteristic would have resulted in the death of the creature because the characteristic if fundamental to the creature's lifeI'll need an example of a creature that could not possibly survive if one of it's charactaristics were different.

b) the lethal nature of some of the creature's defense systems would have resulted in the death of the creature during prior "flawed" mutations.We've been over this. Bad mutation = immediately removed from the gene pool. Good mutation = immediately spreads through the gene pool.

JGL57

04-05-2007, 05:47 PM

However, it is not necessary to turn up all transitional forms, so long as the theory can be supplemented with other evidence, such as genome analysis (and it can). It is, however, granted that every transitional form discovered adds strength to the theory. So how many transitional fossils have been discovered? A lot...Saying that the theory of evolution is unsatisfactory because not all transitional forms can be discovered would, of course, be an argument from ignorance...

It occurs to me the following analogy might be helpful to some in understanding this. Let's say your friend has a jigsaw puzzle that is two feet on a side consisting of a thousand pieces, but he keeps 800 of the pieces and give you only 200 to try to do the puzzle.

If you are very clever, you might very well correctly determine where the 200 pieces fit on the board and thus see enough of the picture to determine what the complete picture actually is.

The fossil record is like this (plus there are other lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion, e.g., consistency between fossils and geological layers, DNA similarities matching form similarities, consistent radioactive dating, overall redundancy of evidence, etc.).

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 06:16 PM

In a perfect world, everything that died would be fossilised, and you would have your endless supply. The world, sadly, is quite imperfect and almost nothing gets fossilised.

Then the necessary evidence that would solidly establish evolution is beyond our ability to procure. Is that what you're saying?

I'll need an example of a creature that could not possibly survive if one of it's charactaristics were different.

The whip scorpion can store a poison inside its body which is 84% acetic acid without dissolving itself. How many tries did that one take, and why would that particular defense arise? How can there be a transistional phase for this modification?

A chameleon without a complete ability to camoflage itself would be much more likely to predation.

Without echolocation, a bat would struggle to feed itself (if at all).

The gastric frog of Australia stops acid production to raise her tadpoles in her stomach. There cannot be transitional forms or else the eggs would be digested.

We've been over this. Bad mutation = immediately removed from the gene pool. Good mutation = immediately spreads through the gene pool.

But why mutation at all? Am I really to believe that every process that goes on in nature, the human body, the earth is a result of numerous failures? Why should life persist at all? If it only started by chance, and the odds are so largely against its survival, I don't get how people believe that the complex systems that orchestrate nearly every aspect of life are the product of random chance. Lots of time + lots of stuff = life. Really?

It occurs to me the following analogy might be helpful to some in understanding this. Let's say your friend has a jigsaw puzzle that is two feet on a side consisting of a thousand pieces, but he keeps 800 of the pieces and give you only 200 to try to do the puzzle.

If you are very clever, you might very well correctly determine where the 200 pieces fit on the board and thus see enough of the picture to determine what the complete picture actually is.

The fossil record is like this (plus there are other lines of evidence that point to the same conclusion, e.g., consistency between fossils and geological layers, DNA similarities matching form similarities, consistent radioactive dating, overall redundancy of evidence, etc.).

Nice analogy - but I don't think we're in disagreement about the fact that nature provides us with an incomplete puzzle in terms of its origins. I think what we disagree upon is what kind of picture the puzzle makes when completed. Evolutionists say that the picture is of blind force, chaos, random chance; Creationists say that the picture is of God.

billyjack

04-05-2007, 07:28 PM

Evolutionists say that the picture is of blind force, chaos, random chance; Creationists say that the picture is of God.

sorry to bud in, but i think the picture you painted evolutionist as putting together is a false one. what you call blind force, random chance and chaos would probably be better called ordered chaos or the nature of things. animals and plants werent following set rules, but nor were they acting randomly. they were following insticts which were passed to them from previous generations and some were also following behavior learned from parents or packs during the organisms lifetime. . . these animals and their genes were doing what came natural--surviving. survival, though chance may play a part, can be seen as not chaotic but orderly in that those that adapt, those that learn, those that compete better are more likely to survive.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 09:30 PM

sorry to bud in, but i think the picture you painted evolutionist as putting together is a false one. what you call blind force, random chance and chaos would probably be better called ordered chaos or the nature of things.

In the absence of God, all that's left are the things I listed; without an intelligent being all we have is force, chance, arbitrary occurrence.

animals and plants werent following set rules, but nor were they acting randomly. they were following insticts which were passed to them from previous generations and some were also following behavior learned from parents or packs during the organisms lifetime. . .

And where did those insticts come from? As well, learned behavior cannot be incoporated into the genetic code that controls instinctual behavior.

these animals and their genes were doing what came natural--surviving. survival, though chance may play a part, can be seen as not chaotic but orderly in that those that adapt, those that learn, those that compete better are more likely to survive.

That's the problem: a God-less universe would be hostile to life; that life arose by chance (and at unbelievable odds) clearly argues against the natural tendency to survive.

cuppajoe_9

04-05-2007, 09:40 PM

Then the necessary evidence that would solidly establish evolution is beyond our ability to procure. Is that what you're saying?Not at all. We've got quite enough to be able to infer aproximately what's missing from the fossil record, and we can determine common ancestry among still-living creatures in other ways. If we have the fossilized remains of Organism A and Organism E, we can assume that there were living, at some point, transitional forms B, C and D. We might also be able to guess what they look like. If we find fossilized remains of B at some point, and they look something like what we expected to, that reinforces our theory. If not, oh well, the theory wasn't depending on them. If, at that point in the fossil record, we find the fossilized remains of Organism Z, then we have a serious problem on our hands, but that hasn't happened yet.

The whip scorpion can store a poison inside its body which is 84% acetic acid without dissolving itself. How many tries did that one take, and why would that particular defense arise? How can there be a transistional phase for this modification?

A chameleon without a complete ability to camoflage itself would be much more likely to predation.

Without echolocation, a bat would struggle to feed itself (if at all).

The gastric frog of Australia stops acid production to raise her tadpoles in her stomach. There cannot be transitional forms or else the eggs would be digested.The pre-scorpion first develops a risistance to some sort of venom that is present in its environment. It then, over time, starts developing the poison in its own body as a defense against being eaten. Nature eventually selects those scorpions which collect the poison in a gland, as opposed to excreting it, because those would be more poisonous, and therefore less likely to be eaten. Eventually, the pre-scorpions develop the ability to eject the poison from their bodies, first as a defense mechanism, and then for the purposes of hunting. Nature selects for those scorpions which can hunt most efectively, and you wind up with something extremely scary.

There are plenty of reptiles who survive without the ability to change colours. The chameleon likely developed that trick out of necessity as his environment became increasingly multi-coloured, likely by flowers competing for the attention of insects.

Bats, despite their reputation, are not blind. Early bats probably hunted in the day, until they were forced by environmental pressures to develop the ability to do so at night. Better hearing is certainly an advantage when you can't see, and the echolocation probably developed in parallel with that.

The frog is an interesting one. Perhaps the ability to turn of the stomach acid developed first, maybe because this particular frog was suceptible to ulcers to the point where it affected its ability to procreate. Raising ones young inside one's self has obvious advantages in terms of chances of passing on one's genes.

I am not saying that this is definitely how these traits evolved, or even that it is probably how those traits evolved. All I'm saying as that, even if you can't imagine transitional forms for some creatures, I certainly can. That doesn't make me right, but it makes it true that transitional forms aren't impossible.

But why mutation at all?Because the process by which DNA is replicated is imperfect.

Am I really to believe that every process that goes on in nature, the human body, the earth is a result of numerous failures?You've made it quite clear that you refuse to believe that. That's your perogative.

Why should life persist at all? If it only started by chance, and the odds are so largely against its survival, I don't get how people believe that the complex systems that orchestrate nearly every aspect of life are the product of random chance.If you are genuinely interested, Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start. The odds are indeed long, but we've had one sextillion* trails running for 13.7 billion years. Something interesting was bound to come up eventually.

*A rough estimate of the number of planets in the universe

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 10:24 PM

Not at all. We've got quite enough to be able to infer aproximately what's missing from the fossil record, and we can determine common ancestry among still-living creatures in other ways. If we have the fossilized remains of Organism A and Organism E, we can assume that there were living, at some point, transitional forms B, C and D. We might also be able to guess what they look like. If we find fossilized remains of B at some point, and they look something like what we expected to, that reinforces our theory. If not, oh well, the theory wasn't depending on them. If, at that point in the fossil record, we find the fossilized remains of Organism Z, then we have a serious problem on our hands, but that hasn't happened yet.

I kind of figured you have an answer like this.

The pre-scorpion first develops a risistance to some sort of venom that is present in its environment. It then, over time, starts developing the poison in its own body as a defense against being eaten. Nature eventually selects those scorpions which collect the poison in a gland, as opposed to excreting it, because those would be more poisonous, and therefore less likely to be eaten. Eventually, the pre-scorpions develop the ability to eject the poison from their bodies, first as a defense mechanism, and then for the purposes of hunting. Nature selects for those scorpions which can hunt most efectively, and you wind up with something extremely scary.

There are plenty of reptiles who survive without the ability to change colours. The chameleon likely developed that trick out of necessity as his environment became increasingly multi-coloured, likely by flowers competing for the attention of insects.

Bats, despite their reputation, are not blind. Early bats probably hunted in the day, until they were forced by environmental pressures to develop the ability to do so at night. Better hearing is certainly an advantage when you can't see, and the echolocation probably developed in parallel with that.

The frog is an interesting one. Perhaps the ability to turn of the stomach acid developed first, maybe because this particular frog was suceptible to ulcers to the point where it affected its ability to procreate. Raising ones young inside one's self has obvious advantages in terms of chances of passing on one's genes.

I am not saying that this is definitely how these traits evolved, or even that it is probably how those traits evolved. All I'm saying as that, even if you can't imagine transitional forms for some creatures, I certainly can. That doesn't make me right, but it makes it true that transitional forms aren't impossible.

Interesting answers (and I figured you'd have answers for these too). My short response would (predicatably) be that the precision and complexity that is involved at all levels of life - from the solar system down to microbiological entities - argues for a designer. I understand why you will attribute such things to random chance - what other choice is there if you eliminate God? I don't intend to change your position - but the evidence and speculation that props up evolution still requires a significant amount of guesswork about gaps that may/may not suppport your position.

Because the process by which DNA is replicated is imperfect.

But why mutate in a beneficial way? Especially to some of the uniquely specific ways some creatures have (i.e. Venus flytrap)?

You've made it quite clear that you refuse to believe that. That's your perogative.

I suppose I'm asking if you believe that - does that really seem reasonable to you - or, must it because you have disavowed the option of the exitence of God?

If you are genuinely interested, Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start. The odds are indeed long, but we've had one sextillion* trails running for 13.7 billion years. Something interesting was bound to come up eventually.

*A rough estimate of the number of planets in the universe

Perhaps - but I dislike Dawkin's militant stance against Christianity - his venom towards us dampens my interest in appreciating his work as a scientist because I question HIGHLY his ojectivity.

cuppajoe_9

04-05-2007, 10:33 PM

But why mutate in a beneficial way? Especially to some of the uniquely specific ways some creatures have (i.e. Venus flytrap)?Short answer: why not? If enough mutations occur, some are bound to be benneficial in some way, and these get selected and spread through the gene pool.

The Venus Flytrap's fly trap was not the product of one mutation, but thousands, each giving it a slight edge over its competition and each bringing it closer to its current form.

I suppose I'm asking if you believe that - does that really seem reasonable to you - or, must it because you have disavowed the option of the exitence of God?Acceptance of evolution came before atheism in my particular case. And yes, it seems more than reasonable to me, it seems almost self-evident.

Perhaps - but I dislike Dawkin's militant stance against Christianity - his venom towards us dampens my interest in appreciating his work as a scientist because I question HIGHLY his ojectivity.I'm not overly fond of Dawkins' militancy either, but if you want to understand evolution, he's one of the few in the field who knows how to talk like an actual human being (as opposed to a scientist).

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 10:55 PM

Short answer: why not? If enough mutations occur, some are bound to be benneficial in some way, and these get selected and spread through the gene pool.

It seems that the immense time spans that had to pass while life forms adapted would contribute more to the ending of life than its advancement, because creatures still had to eat in the meantime; are we assuming that prey and predator developed reciprocally, so that the predator's adaptations didn't advance faster than the prey's ability to defend/elude? The timing of all these changes seems too fantastic to be believed. When you consider the numerous things that happen when the birth process begins (heck, the entire process of pregnancy) how can we account for that? How did the species survive whilst all those thousands of chemical/neurological processes worked themselves out?

The Venus Flytrap's fly trap was not the product of one mutation, but thousands, each giving it a slight edge over its competition and each bringing it closer to its current form.

Right: and what good is a partial "jaw," or one missing the "trip hairs" inside, or an an incomplete "closing" muscle reflex? In other words, am I to believe that all the interlocking components that allow a venus flytrap to do what it does all evolved simultaneously? Because if not, then the other developments in isolation would have proved useless, and therefore should not have "carried forward" in the evolution of that particular creature.

Acceptance of evolution came before atheism in my particular case. And yes, it seems more than reasonable to me, it seems almost self-evident.

Understandable. But "self-evident" I disagree with - like the old anecdote of finding the watch on the beach, I think the idea that complex, non-random structures occur naturally is less intuitive than the idea that this thing is so detailed and complex (with interlocking and cooperating systems precisely balanced to do what they do) that it clearly shows an intention of design and purpose.

I'm not overly fond of Dawkins' militancy either, but if you want to understand evolution, he's one of the few in the field who knows how to talk like an actual human being (as opposed to a scientist).

I may too buried in my position to appreciate Dawkin's explanation because I do not have faith in humanity's attempts to attribute to mindless nature that which clearly shows intelligent design.

cuppajoe_9

04-05-2007, 11:17 PM

It seems that the immense time spans that had to pass while life forms adapted would contribute more to the ending of life than its advancement, because creatures still had to eat in the meantime; are we assuming that prey and predator developed reciprocally, so that the predator's adaptations didn't advance faster than the prey's ability to defend/elude?Predator population develops slightly better eyesight, prey population declines, genes for slightly better camoflage spread throughout prey population, predator population declines, genes for slightly better eyesight spread throught predator population...you get the picture.

Right: and what good is a partial "jaw," or one missing the "trip hairs" inside, or an an incomplete "closing" muscle reflex? In other words, am I to believe that all the interlocking components that allow a venus flytrap to do what it does all evolved simultaneously?They probably evolved from something like a pitcher-plant. Pitcher plant develops a mechanism for closing slightly when a fly enters using the light-sensitive membranes that most plants already have, then a mechanism for detecting the presense of insects more accurately, etc., etc., etc.

But "self-evident" I disagree with - like the old anecdote of finding the watch on the beach, I think the idea that complex, non-random structures occur naturally is less intuitive than the idea that this thing is so detailed and complex (with interlocking and cooperating systems precisely balanced to do what they do) that it clearly shows an intention of design and purpose.Self-evident once all the evidence is present. I agree that one would have considerable trouble coming to that conclusion on one's daily walk.

I may too buried in my position to appreciate Dawkin's explanation because I do not have faith in humanity's attempts to attribute to mindless nature that which clearly shows intelligent design.Then one of us is wasting his time.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 11:28 PM

Predator population develops slightly better eyesight, prey population declines, genes for slightly better camoflage spread throughout prey population, predator population declines, genes for slightly better eyesight spread throught predator population...you get the picture.

True - but you're describing a pretty balanced progression here - one that presents a certain logic that I wonder doesn't implicitly also point towards a designer; why should nature progress in such a "fair" and balanced way?

They probably evolved from something like a pitcher-plant. Pitcher plant develops a mechanism for closing slightly when a fly enters using the light-sensitive membranes that most plants already have, then a mechanism for detecting the presense of insects more accurately, etc., etc., etc.

But why develop this particular characteristic at all? Why carnivorous plants? Why only these few varieties? Why not all plants carnivorous, or none? Why these few?

Self-evident once all the evidence is present. I agree that one would have considerable trouble coming to that conclusion on one's daily walk.

But "all of the evidence" will never be present - certain realities preclude that from happening - you've admitted that yourself. One of the things evolution cannot do is obey the tenants of the scientific method:

1) Observation
2) Hypothesis information
3) Prediction
4) Testing and predictions

Evolution cannot answer to these requirements.

Then one of us is wasting his time.

Probably you more than I - but is that a surprise to you?

cuppajoe_9

04-05-2007, 11:36 PM

True - but you're describing a pretty balanced progression here - one that presents a certain logic that I wonder doesn't implicitly also point towards a designer; why should nature progress in such a "fair" and balanced way?Well, sometimes it doesn't work that way. The alternative is one or both species going extinct. That usually happens one way or another. It progresses slowly because evolution takes several generations to take effect.

But why develop this particular characteristic at all? Why carnivorous plants? Why only these few varieties? Why not all plants carnivorous, or none? Why these few?Because they happen to live in an environment where it's easier to get certain nutrients out of insects than out of the ground. Why else?

But "all of the evidence" will never be presentI suppose I should have said "all the evidence thus far collected".

One of the things evolution cannot do is obey the tenants of the scientific method:

1) Observation
2) Hypothesis information
3) Prediction
4) Testing and predictions

Evolution cannot answer to these requirements.I can't believe I've bothered to respond to this. For information regarding the observations that lead to evolution and the predictions which it makes and then tests sucesfully, please refer to the entire rest of this thread.

Probably you more than I - but is that a surprise to you?No.

billyjack

04-07-2007, 10:56 AM

pardon, one quick thing.

In the absence of God, all that's left are the things I listed; without an intelligent being all we have is force, chance, arbitrary occurrence.

And where did those insticts come from? As well, learned behavior cannot be incoporated into the genetic code that controls instinctual behavior.

That's the problem: a God-less universe would be hostile to life; that life arose by chance (and at unbelievable odds) clearly argues against the natural tendency to survive.

1) i don't buy the whole intelligent being doohicky. that would suggest that god consiously created everything. that means he thought everything. thought happens linearly, one thing at a time in a series. You can only think of one thing at a time, but that is too slow for understanding anything at all and much too slow to understand everything. "it would be like trying to drink the pacific ocean with a one pint beer mug" (watts). a silly method for drinking the ocean, a beer bong would be more feasible. anyways, maybe "intelligent" design isnt the best way to desribe creation.

2) instincts are innate, found in geneology.

the ability to learn is an instinctual behavior--some are naturally better at it than others. although that which is learned during a lifetime is not passed down in the genetic code, that ability to learn is!

3) on the contrary to your claim that a godless world is hostile to life--"what has been the greatest objection to existence so far? god." (N)

cuppajoe_9

04-07-2007, 01:01 PM

*puts on devil's advocate hat*

In Red's absense, I will point out that while you can't think of more than one thing at a time, there is no reason to think that God, if he exists, can't.

Dante Wodehouse

04-07-2007, 01:07 PM

You accept a theory as fact or your reject it as fact. Believing in something is about opinion, whereas acceptance of something is about knowledge.

I can believe that I can fly, but that doesn't make it true. I can reject the knowledge that tells me that I cannot fly and therefore still make my belief reasonable. If I accept the knowledge that I cannot fly but still believe I can fly anyway, I'm unreasonably believing in something.

Evolution is a fact that is explained by theory because that's how science works. Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. Creationism is a belief that is explained by the Bible alone. Whether you believe in it or not is also up to you. The point is: In evolution the evidence is put into data both physical and theoretical, which have been analyzed and made sense of for years over, constantly changing so as to be more accurate over time. In creationism the evidence is testimonial evidence displayed through the Bible which may or may not be the word of God. There's no "evidence" of creationism displayed in any manner, outside of attempts to disprove evolution. The entire creationist argument is centered 99% on disproving evolution, instead of proving its own "theory" of creationism because, as most might say, we're not meant to understand God's plan for creation. Or if you want to be blunt: 'I don't know, but I believe you're wrong anyway' mentality.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, based on my experience with how each side works. Evolutionary biologists almost never take creationism seriously for good reason: They've got evidence of their theory, whereas all creationism has sought to do is pop illogical and emotionally driven holes in evolution that have nothing to do with the theory itself. Personally speaking, the whole "vs" idea of evolution against creation is absurd because the argument comes down to Biblical truth as being capable of being interpretted as scientific truth or the dismissal of such truths as merely literature that is more philosophy than scientific fact.

A bit of a long-winded reply, but I do find it more succint to get the basics out of the way early. heh

Evolutionary biologists are relying on theory alone, and have been relying on such since their last (false) evidence collapsed on itself. On the contrary, the fossil record shows a completely contrary notion. Fossils of animals do not have a gradual chain, but show explosions of extinction and creation of new species. For example, the dinosaurs died and were almost immediately replaced by mammals. The fossil record should also show many errors, that is, organisms who have been unfortunate enough to have mutated undesirable traits. There have been no such examples. Natural selection could and probably did develope the different finch species on the Galapagos, but it cannot create anything more complex than a variation of beak shape.

Dante Wodehouse

04-07-2007, 01:08 PM

*puts on devil's advocate hat*

I find that ironic in many ways on nine levels.

Dante Wodehouse

04-07-2007, 01:09 PM

It seems that Red is involved in every theological discussion on this site.

cuppajoe_9

04-07-2007, 01:17 PM

Evolutionary biologists are relying on theory alone, and have been relying on such since their last (false) evidence collapsed on itself.Completely false.

On the contrary, the fossil record shows a completely contrary notion. Fossils of animals do not have a gradual chain, but show explosions of extinction and creation of new species. For example, the dinosaurs died and were almost immediately replaced by mammals."Almsot immediately" is geological terms, means "in about 10 million years". Anyhow, if this is evidence of any kind of design, "intelligent design" is hardly the right term. "Psychotic design" might be more accurate. Why create a plethora of dinosaur species and then kill every single one?

The fossil record should also show many errors, that is, organisms who have been unfortunate enough to have mutated undesirable traits. There have been no such examples.That's because an undesireable trait, by definition, decreases one's chances for survival. It is completely impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesireable trait.

I find that ironic in many ways on nine levels.I don't strike you as a good Catholic boy, Dante?

Dante Wodehouse

04-07-2007, 01:38 PM

Completely false.

"Almsot immediately" is geological terms, means "in about 10 million years". Anyhow, if this is evidence of any kind of design, "intelligent design" is hardly the right term. "Psychotic design" might be more accurate. Why create a plethora of dinosaur species and then kill every single one?

I am currently focussed on disproving evolution as a foolish fancy, not in proving intelligent design. It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.

That's because an undesireable trait, by definition, decreases one's chances for survival. It is completely impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesireable trait.
It is impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesirable trait, but I'm not talking specifics; there has been a tiny-nonexistent amount of badly mutated creatures of any kind. Darwinism requires there to be even more badly mutated organisms than well mutated, while fossils have shown just the opposite.

I don't strike you as a good Catholic boy, Dante?

I thought you were Protestant!!!! (here I would add a smiley if not for my dislike of adding smileys)

cuppajoe_9

04-07-2007, 02:09 PM

It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.Again, quite false. Uranium-lead radiometric dating can date rocks 3 billion years old with a margin of error of about 2 million years, and argon dating has a margin of error of less than 5%.

It is impossible for an entire species to evolve an undesirable trait, but I'm not talking specifics; there has been a tiny-nonexistent amount of badly mutated creatures of any kind.Fossilization is rare. There have been rarely few creatures with harmful mutations because these creatures, by definition, die before being able to pass on their genes. Beneficial mutations are easier to find because these things spread through the gene pool.

Darwinism requires there to be even more badly mutated organisms than well mutated, while fossils have shown just the opposite.Nope, it requires more non-beneficial mutations than beneficial. However, it predicts that creatures displaying beneficial mutations will be more common, because they – again, by definition – are better at replicating themselves.

billyjack

04-07-2007, 02:11 PM

*puts on devil's advocate hat*

In Red's absense, I will point out that while you can't think of more than one thing at a time, there is no reason to think that God, if he exists, can't.

okay. i do not think that this being able to think more than one thing at a time would be called thinking as we know it. it would be more in par with the same kind of intelligence we possess when we breath, grow our hair, fire our nerves, digest our meals, ect....basically, unconscious, or ignored by our consciousness.

point is, this kind of intelligence isnt godly-- at least not in the christian sense--rather, its nature. and if this is what they want to call godliness, i am going to have to call myself god, and you, and red, and everybody and everything because we all have the natural ability to do without knowing how we do or do many things at once.

hyperborean

04-07-2007, 04:50 PM

I am currently focussed on disproving evolution as a foolish fancy, not in proving intelligent design. It is only 10 million years because they cannot narrow the time slot to a smaller length.

yea, 10 million years according to some crazy evangelical preacher:lol:

The Atheist

04-08-2007, 03:17 AM

What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?

Other than christianity, I mean.

The Atheist

04-08-2007, 03:19 AM

I am currently focussed on disproving evolution as a foolish fancy,

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good luck!

Let me know how you get on, I have a link to the Nobel Institute and you'll be a certainty for the Biology Prize!

Mate, that's the funniest thing I've seen this year - cheers.

The Atheist

04-08-2007, 03:20 AM

Interesting poll details so far, on quite a large sample.

Glad to see that over 49% of responses are sane.

Reccura

04-08-2007, 03:29 AM

Creation -- believe in creation. Every little thing's are created. That means us too.

hyperborean

04-08-2007, 11:04 AM

Creation -- believe in creation. Every little thing's are created. That means us too.

No but the debate is whether you believe if God zapped humans directly on the planet from scratch, or if you believe in evolution. please specify (of course we were created, but from what?)

Redzeppelin

04-08-2007, 07:30 PM

Well, sometimes it doesn't work that way. The alternative is one or both species going extinct. That usually happens one way or another. It progresses slowly because evolution takes several generations to take effect.

Several generations? That's it?

Because they happen to live in an environment where it's easier to get certain nutrients out of insects than out of the ground. Why else?

A good answer, but come on - the idea that a plant is carnivorous goes against the general rule of plant life. I do not see the logic in a plant which lives in an environment so bereft of "food" in the soil that it somehow managed to morph into a meat eater rather than simply die (like most of the other plants around it that were certainly starving too)? Really? Your answer is at the same time reasonable and absurd.

I can't believe I've bothered to respond to this. For information regarding the observations that lead to evolution and the predictions which it makes and then tests sucesfully, please refer to the entire rest of this thread.

Well good grief, joe, don't let me waste your time. You're free to ignore any comment of mine that strikes you as absurd, illogical, or just plain ignorant, OK? Nobody makes you respond.

Redzeppelin

04-08-2007, 07:32 PM

What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?

I wonder the same thing, but in the spirit of Christian forgiveness and compassion, I and my believing brothers do the best we can to put up with them :D

Dante Wodehouse

04-08-2007, 08:13 PM

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Good luck!

Let me know how you get on, I have a link to the Nobel Institute and you'll be a certainty for the Biology Prize!

Mate, that's the funniest thing I've seen this year - cheers.

Why is that the funniest thing you've seen this year? It is an odd theory and the evidence of it is something I wish to analyze. Einstein analyzed Newton, but that detracts nothing from either. Einstein even proved Newton wrong in regards to the details of gravity. Speculation is inevitable, and just because I have a preconcieved notion in the issue does not mean that it is false. You have given no evidence to suggest that you are more knowledgable than I except that you side with a majority of biologists while I don't. That means nothing. New ideas inevitably replace old ones. The story of Genesis has been replaced, but what it has been replaced with (Darwinism) can still be subject to retrospect. I'm not even talking about religion, I intend to find the scientific evidence for evolution via natural selection and to find the truth and not be subjected to "The Peppered Moth Experiment" and the Archeopterix as proof.

kilted exile

04-08-2007, 08:59 PM

Just attempting to clear up a few things from the last couple of pages:

Generations to take effect for adaptations/mutations:

Ok, I am going to attempt to not go too far into genetics to explain this, but there are some basics of genetic theory neccessary to be understood for this (the work of the monk Mendel in particular).

The short answer is the # of generations for the change to be noticeable basically depends on 3 things: How beneficial is the original mutation; How shallow is the gene pool; How complex is the organism.

Now the longer answer.......Most physical characteristics have a dominant and recessive characteristic, the characteristic I am going to use in this example is vestigial wings in fruit flies (idea is the same for all characteristics - with the exception of linkage, which if people are interested I will try to explain at a later date).

So a short intro to genetics (please bear with me I am not sure the level of knowledge of everyone regarding this subject so I will be starting from scratch) Genes are located on different chromosomes. Chromosomes are found as pairs inside the nuclei of cells. When an offspring is created it will get one chromosome from each parent for each chromosome pair.

All right back to our Drosphilia (fruit fly). The dominant characteristic is to have normal wings (designated to be N in the cross below) as opposed to vestigial wings (signified by n).

2 "strong" normal wing parents:

NN x NN Parents

NN NN NN NN Offspring

All offspring will be "strong" normal winged fruit flies

1 "strong" normal wing & 1 vestigial wing:

NN x nn Parents

Nn Nn Nn Nn Offspring

All offspring "weak" normal winged

1 "strong" normal wing & 1 "weak" normal wing:

NN x Nn Parents

NN Nn NN Nn Offspring

"strong" and "weak" normal offspring created in 1:1 ratio

2 "weak" normal winged:

Nn x Nn Parents

NN Nn Nn nn Offspring

Normal and vestigial winged offspring created in a 3:1 ratio

So as can be seen from the above once the mutation has found its way into the gene pool it will become visible in the 3rd generation, however the offspring bearing that charateristic will be in a definite minority. Then depending on the benefits/drawbacks of the mutation it will become more or less prevalent in the society

I had been going to attempt to explain some other things as well, but this post has taken longer than I thought so I'll adress them at a later date.

Bakiryu

04-08-2007, 09:11 PM

It's a mix between Creation and Evolution.

The whole thought of creation arises the possibility of a creator. I could easily believe that even if i don't follow any mainstream religion.

Dante Wodehouse

04-08-2007, 09:21 PM

It's a mix between Creation and Evolution.

The whole thought of creation arises the possibility of a creator. I could easily believe that even if i don't follow any mainstream religion.

Exactly. No one doubts that simple changes can arise, but complex organs (such as the cellular cilia) cannot be explained without undertaking immense odds against such an occurance. Darwinism doesn't accept cellular Darwinism.

Dante Wodehouse

04-08-2007, 09:26 PM

Again, quite false. Uranium-lead radiometric dating can date rocks 3 billion years old with a margin of error of about 2 million years, and argon dating has a margin of error of less than 5%.
When refering to billions of years, 5% is an awful lot.

Fossilization is rare. There have been rarely few creatures with harmful mutations because these creatures, by definition, die before being able to pass on their genes. Beneficial mutations are easier to find because these things spread through the gene pool.
But there should be at least as many poorly mutated creatures as pathways of well mutated creatures.

Nope, it requires more non-beneficial mutations than beneficial. However, it predicts that creatures displaying beneficial mutations will be more common, because they – again, by definition – are better at replicating themselves.

But there should be at least as many poorly mutated creatures as pathways of well mutated creatures. Fossils show a direct pathway, without as many poor mutations as there should be.

Bakiryu

04-08-2007, 09:36 PM

The Earth is said to be indefenedtly old, yet life is a recently new development.

If the Earth is so old, why did life wait so long?

What caused the first mutation? The first organism wasn't born out of nothing? And then, how can if an organism be first, if it had to be born? There will always be an ancestor. A being can mutate unless is there!

cuppajoe_9

04-08-2007, 09:50 PM

Several generations? That's it?At least.

A good answer, but come on - the idea that a plant is carnivorous goes against the general rule of plant life.Plants don't respect the 'general rules of plant life', they just survive or not.

I do not see the logic in a plant which lives in an environment so bereft of "food" in the soil that it somehow managed to morph into a meat eater rather than simply die (like most of the other plants around it that were certainly starving too)?The plant likely had some quirk of root structure that allowed it to get the nutrients required out of the marshy soil it lives in. The carnivorous adaptations simply help it do so more efficiently. It isn't an all-or-nothing game, and small advantages can lead to large effects.

Well good grief, joe, don't let me waste your time. You're free to ignore any comment of mine that strikes you as absurd, illogical, or just plain ignorant, OK?I apologize for being short. I do, however, maintain that the comment was flat-out false.

I intend to find the scientific evidence for evolution via natural selection and to find the truth and not be subjected to "The Peppered Moth Experiment" and the Archeopterix as proof.You are the only person on this part of the thread who has mentioned either peppered moths or archaeopteryxes.

When refering to billions of years, 5% is an awful lot.Yeah, fortunately we're only talking about hundreds of millions, 0.153% is still not very much. Argon is a double-check, and there are a few others that I couldn't find the specific accuracies of.

But there should be at least as many poorly mutated creatures as pathways of well mutated creatures.Nope. Badly mutated creatures don't reproduce. Because they're dead.

I'm curious as to what you think the 'direct pathway' indicates.

cuppajoe_9

04-08-2007, 09:56 PM

The Earth is said to be indefenedtly old, yet life is a recently new development.The earth is a little over 4.56 billion years old and life is probably somewhere between 3.9 and 4.1 billion. The difference is presumeably the time it took for conditions to become favorable (it's hard to have life with a molten crust, for example).

What caused the first mutation? The first organism wasn't born out of nothing? And then, how can if an organism be first, if it had to be born? There will always be an ancestor. A being can mutate unless is there!Short answer: dunno. There are a few hypotheses floating about regarding how organic molecules could have arisen from inorganic compounds, but nothing is really settled.

Bakiryu

04-08-2007, 10:24 PM

Exactly! That is why there can't be evolution without creation!

cuppajoe_9

04-08-2007, 10:51 PM

Exactly! That is why there can't be evolution without creation!

:confused:

I'm missing something.

The Atheist

04-09-2007, 04:45 AM

Exactly. No one doubts that simple changes can arise, but complex organs (such as the cellular cilia) cannot be explained without undertaking immense odds against such an occurance. Darwinism doesn't accept cellular Darwinism.

Wrong again.

For heaven's sake will you please at least do some elementary mathematics and biology before you make these wild, incorrect assertions.

The Atheist

04-09-2007, 05:14 AM

Why is that the funniest thing you've seen this year? It is an odd theory and the evidence of it is something I wish to analyze.

I really wish you would analyse it. You'd stop being a creationist for a kick-off. Given that you understand neither mathematics nor biology and appear to have no knowledge at all of physics, I find it mind-boggling that you think there's any way at all you could attack the established science of evolution! Not to mention being able to "dismiss it as an idle fancy"

The Vatican spent over a hundred years, using the finest minds in christianity trying to understand what evolution means to god and religion.

They now accept evolution, but you're going to see it dismissed as an idle fancy.

Ok.

Einstein analyzed Newton, but that detracts nothing from either. Einstein even proved Newton wrong in regards to the details of gravity.

See, again you're missing the point. Science is refined by further generations. The science of evolution is being refined all the time. It is not going to be reversed in its tracks and proved wrong in its entirety. To suggest that the earth was created 6010 years ago is to negate all science, not just evolution - you do understand that, don't you?

It would mean that all physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and every physical discipline ever known is completely and utterly wrong. I think YECs forget that - you're not just fighting evolution, you're also fighting the physical laws which say that The Flood can not have happened. You're saying that all known biology is completely wrong. You can't have it both ways.

And you, personally, are going to negate the past 500 years of science one afternoon. Does any of this sound a little odd?

Speculation is inevitable, and just because I have a preconcieved notion in the issue does not mean that it is false.

Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.

You have given no evidence to suggest that you are more knowledgable than I except that you side with a majority of biologists while I don't.

And physicists, mathematicians, members of the NAS, Medical doctors and evolution scientists, yep.

The reason I won't give you evidence is precisely as I said - if you wanted to actually learn the truth, you'd try. You'd start by accepting that accepted science is almost always right, or very, very close to being right.

If I thought there was any chance that you'd accept actual scientific facts, I'd let you have them. Your discussion with others, where you are being shown some of these facts, doesn't encourage me that you have any intention of seeing anything which might contradict your notion.

That means nothing. New ideas inevitably replace old ones.

Wrong again. New ideas hardly ever replace old ones. Things change over time as we learn more. What are combustion engines but an improved version of a lever, fulcrum and wheel combined with fire? What is your computer but a fancy abacus? The keyboard working on exactly the same principles as early printing presses. Again I reiterate, accepted science is often updated, but hardly ever proven to be incorrect. Even the "flat-earth" argument falls over. Given the primitive means of measurement, the earth was damn near flat and certainly flat enough to let people think it was flat all over. Once we realised it was round, we thought it was a sphere. That wasn't right either, but it was pretty close. We now know exactly what shape the earth is.

During the past 100 years, methods of identifying ages of substances found on this planet have become remakably accurate - well over 99% accuracy. That can sound like a lot when billions of years are considered, but it's minute. It may be improved to 99.9999999999% accuracy, but it will not be proven to be 100% wrong.

The story of Genesis has been replaced, but what it has been replaced with (Darwinism) can still be subject to retrospect.

**SIGH**

You need to realise that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.

It has been well and truly refuted as any kind of fact.

Darwinian evolution has come a long way from Darwin, just as computers have come a long way in the past 30 years. A 1977 computer to run a single payroll schedule took up more floor space than a double bed. Now, you could run ten on your desktop PC at the same time as talking on Skype and writing at a forum, connected to the internet. Technology improves.

I'm not even talking about religion, I intend to find the scientific evidence for evolution via natural selection and to find the truth and not be subjected to "The Peppered Moth Experiment" and the Archeopterix as proof.

Well, I do wish you the very best of luck, because as noted, if you genuinely seek answers, you'll find them alright. They won't do your beliefs any good, though.

You also need to realise that the fossil record can never be complete. Only the minutest percentage of all animals which lived have been fossilised. Lack of a complete record speaks in favour of the evolutionary time-frame.

Read and enjoy.

andave_ya

04-09-2007, 10:40 AM

What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?

Other than christianity, I mean.

Faith. For both sides, Christianity and evolution. That's how I believe the Flood happened and that Jesus died and rose again because of course, I wasn't there to see those events happen but God and other people did and God inspired them to write the books of the Bible. Evolutionists have to have strong hearty faith in order to believe evolution because evolutionists have no way of knowing that the Big Bang actually occured, say, or that a whale actually is an animal that was a sea-creature-turned-land-animal-turned-sea creature again simply because there was/are no people there to observe it.

Glad you rejoined the discussion. :wave:

billyjack

04-09-2007, 11:12 AM

Faith. For both sides, Christianity and evolution. That's how I believe the Flood happened and that Jesus died and rose again because of course, I wasn't there to see those events happen but God and other people did and God inspired them to write the books of the Bible. Evolutionists have to have strong hearty faith in order to believe evolution because evolutionists have no way of knowing that the Big Bang actually occured, say, or that a whale actually is an animal that was a sea-creature-turned-land-animal-turned-sea creature again simply because there was/are no people there to observe it.

Glad you rejoined the discussion. :wave:

i am not convinced one way or the other, but i do like solid evidence and good arguments. evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. its what happened once life started that evolution theorizes.

sure, people werent around to observe the whale change from sea to land to sea. but fossil evidence is. fossil evidence is the equivalent of a telescope. although the stars arent really observed by people since a device is aiding them, ,so goes with fossils. people arent really observing the evolutionary changes, but we are using a device--fossils--to see these changes.

hyperborean

04-09-2007, 11:52 AM

**SIGH**

You need to realize that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.

Finally. The reason why the arguments have been going on in this thread is because certain individuals still believe that adam and eve is historical fact.

Nightshade

04-09-2007, 02:04 PM

No but the debate is whether you believe if God zapped humans directly on the planet from scratch, or if you believe in evolution. please specify (of course we were created, but from what?)
How come you cant belive in both? Thats what I would like to know. I belive in both

The Vatican spent over a hundred years, using the finest minds in christianity trying to understand what evolution means to god and religion.

They now accept evolution,

really? Now this I want to read are there any books on religion and eveloution as in the compromise between the 2.

Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.

Can I say somthing now this is a pure aside and neither here or there just a logical argument point.... but if people like Darwin and whoever else lets say galilio only it wasnt him but never mind. If people like that hadnt said OI there is somthing distinctly fishy with this well established idea we all take for granted evloutionary theory would exsist heck America as we know it wouldnt exsist.

:D

Redzeppelin

04-09-2007, 02:05 PM

Finally. The reason why the arguments have been going on in this thread is because certain individuals still believe that adam and eve is historical fact.

Incorrect: the reason arguments are still going on in this thread is that you have two suppositional foundations upon which two parties are hurling their "evidence" at each other; neither has definitive (or even thoroughly convincing) proof of their position; both foundations - because they are fundamentally unprovable and unobservable - require a certain degree of faith from its adherents in order to accept as true; both involve indoctrination. Whether or not Genesis is literal or metaphorical or allegorical does not change the fact both sides of this debate are entrenched into their presuppositional foundations upon which both are constructing their arguments.

billyjack

04-09-2007, 02:22 PM

Incorrect: the reason arguments are still going on in this thread is that you have two suppositional foundations upon which two parties are hurling their "evidence" at each other; neither has definitive (or even thoroughly convincing) proof of their position; both foundations - because they are fundamentally unprovable and unobservable - require a certain degree of faith from its adherents in order to accept as true; both involve indoctrination. Whether or not Genesis is literal or metaphorical or allegorical does not change the fact both sides of this debate are entrenched into their presuppositional foundations upon which both are constructing their arguments.

sorry to bud in, but evolution and creationist do not have similar foundations. a similar foundation would be something like concrete vs brick. creationist have a foundation of straw. straw being the substance that books are made out of, figuratively speaking. evolutionist have the foundation of concrete, concrete being the substance that real life stuff is made out of, like fossils. fossils vs. books. in terms of real evidence, there isnt a question as to which is a better foundation. i agree that evolution needs faith, by faith i mean intellectual trust. creationism needs belief. by belief i mean wishing.

Redzeppelin

04-09-2007, 03:42 PM

I really wish you would analyse it. You'd stop being a creationist for a kick-off.

Only if "facts" and observable reality (requiring human interpretation) are the full measures of reality (they're not). You also underestimate faith - but then again, Naturalists have no need of faith, so perhaps it's less a matter of underestimating and more of not understanding at all.

Given that you understand neither mathematics nor biology and appear to have no knowledge at all of physics, I find it mind-boggling that you think there's any way at all you could attack the established science of evolution! Not to mention being able to "dismiss it as an idle fancy"

Why don't you do us all a favor: rather than tell us how ignorant you think we are, why don't you show us how knowledgable your comments imply you to be - because it really takes zero knowledge, ability or understanding to express how un-knowledgable you believe others to be. Walk the walk you appear to be talking and show us what you know that makes you so confident; telling us how lacking in knowledge we must be really accomplishes nothing of value. I see lots of dismissiveness pointed towards the assertions of other posters, but no "facts" or arguments to rebut them effectively.

See, again you're missing the point. Science is refined by further generations. The science of evolution is being refined all the time. It is not going to be reversed in its tracks and proved wrong in its entirety. To suggest that the earth was created 6010 years ago is to negate all science, not just evolution - you do understand that, don't you?

Evolution will eventually be proven false (because Earth's Architect will show up and silence all argument on the matter :) ). To suggest that the roughly 1.7 million lifeforms on the earth developed out of a single cell is beyond any "fantasy" that the Bible may be accused of presenting and is easily as absurd as the Biblical literalist's insistence of a 6000 year-old earth.

It would mean that all physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and every physical discipline ever known is completely and utterly wrong.

Not quite - just the parts that tell us that life came from non-life, that matter came out of nothing, that random chance designed the mind-numbing complexity of all living creatures. Those parts are wrong - but the rest - the stuff about gravity and colds and how earthquakes happen? That stuff's all right (as far as I've heard).

I think YECs forget that - you're not just fighting evolution, you're also fighting the physical laws which say that The Flood can not have happened. You're saying that all known biology is completely wrong. You can't have it both ways.

What "physical laws" say the flood could not have happened? Besides, if God is behind the flood (the Bible says He was) then so what? He created the physical laws; He can "bend" them when He wishes to accomplish His will (such things are called "miracles"). "All known" biology isn't wrong - just the parts that say life came from non-life and random chance took a single cell and morphed it into the hundreds upon thousands of forms of life now on the earth.

And you, personally, are going to negate the past 500 years of science one afternoon. Does any of this sound a little odd?

No odder than people who claim as fact an unproven theory.

Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.

500 years of science has not been directed towards the validation of evolution. The theory of evolution is not 500 years old. "Established science" is almost an oxymoron: it is "established" on many things at a fairly stable level; on others, its "establishment" is liable to be revised and "re-established."

The reason I won't give you evidence is precisely as I said - if you wanted to actually learn the truth, you'd try. You'd start by accepting that accepted science is almost always right, or very, very close to being right.

I'm tired of this cop-out. Either you have evidence or you don't; either you have confidence in it or you don't. Quit bluffing and show your cards - because I'm starting to wonder.

Your final sentence is a key one, because it reveals the presuppositional base that you're arguing from; note that you understand that one must first accept your presupposition about science in order for the assertions of evolution to make sense and seem plausible. This could be restated from my side of the coin like this: If you wish for me to "prove" Creation to you, I'll be happy to do so; first we'll need you to accept that 1) God exists and 2) that the Bible is His revelation of Truth.

Side note: I loved the qualifiers: "almost always right or very, very close to being right." That's awesome :D

If I thought there was any chance that you'd accept actual scientific facts, I'd let you have them. Your discussion with others, where you are being shown some of these facts, doesn't encourage me that you have any intention of seeing anything which might contradict your notion.

The same could be said about you in terms of considering Creationism or Intelligent Design; the truth is, you are as deeply indoctrinated as the Christians here are. Again - here you are retreating from the challenge; if you've got evidence, let's see it - quit bluffing. Finally, notice again that you have revealed your suppositional requirements for the argument: see things from inside my frame and I'll give you evidence. You're a smart person, because you know, just like I know, that facts can only be considered inside a frame that gives them meaning. Without Naturalism firmly in place as your frame, you know that your evidence has no power.

Wrong again. New ideas hardly ever replace old ones. Things change over time as we learn more. What are combustion engines but an improved version of a lever, fulcrum and wheel combined with fire? What is your computer but a fancy abacus? The keyboard working on exactly the same principles as early printing presses. Again I reiterate, accepted science is often updated, but hardly ever proven to be incorrect. Even the "flat-earth" argument falls over. Given the primitive means of measurement, the earth was damn near flat and certainly flat enough to let people think it was flat all over. Once we realised it was round, we thought it was a sphere. That wasn't right either, but it was pretty close. We now know exactly what shape the earth is.

Clever but flawed logic. Notice how you "spun" the flat-earth problem by saying essentially "well, since it looked flat to them, it was flat, so science was right." The flat-earth believers were wrong because they based their "facts" on limited observation (they didn't have the entire picture, and were therefore speculating based on their physical observations to fill in the gaps - you know, like evolutionists are doing right now).

**SIGH**

Yes: I know the feeling too - it generally strikes me whilst posting on this forum (right about now, I think).

You need to realise that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.

I love it when people who know little if anything about the Bible tell believers what they need to do - that's pretty silly. Here: What you need to realize is that God wrote the book and it's for real. There: how effective was that? Are you "realizing" even now as you read? Why not?

"Sensible" because they fit your world-view. Are they still sensible if they say Christ's resurrection was literal? Can a church be partially "sensible" and partially "deluded"?

Darwinian evolution has come a long way from Darwin, just as computers have come a long way in the past 30 years. A 1977 computer to run a single payroll schedule took up more floor space than a double bed. Now, you could run ten on your desktop PC at the same time as talking on Skype and writing at a forum, connected to the internet. Technology improves.

Neat analogy, but not apt. Darwin's theory has become even less convincing and even adherents admit to some of the difficulties in the theory.

You also need to realise that the fossil record can never be complete. Only the minutest percentage of all animals which lived have been fossilised. Lack of a complete record speaks in favour of the evolutionary time-frame.

Here we go again: nobody "needs" to do anything you say. We only need present our points in a reasonable and coherent manner (the same as you). The incomplete fossil record is one of the key pieces of evidence that is frustrating evolution's "triumph." Without it to confirm the speculations of evolutionists, the hypothesis of evolution remains speculative. When you're dealing with something you claim to have happened historically, you need more than speculation - you need to have some sort of corroboration - and without the fossil record, you're down a big one.

Redzeppelin

04-09-2007, 03:45 PM

sorry to bud in, but evolution and creationist do not have similar foundations. a similar foundation would be something like concrete vs brick. creationist have a foundation of straw. straw being the substance that books are made out of, figuratively speaking. evolutionist have the foundation of concrete, concrete being the substance that real life stuff is made out of, like fossils. fossils vs. books. in terms of real evidence, there isnt a question as to which is a better foundation. i agree that evolution needs faith, by faith i mean intellectual trust. creationism needs belief. by belief i mean wishing.

And you would be wrong in most of what you've said here. Both positions are inherently unprovable; both positions have "evidence" that is largely given force through matters of interpretation; both positions require a "leap of faith" in order to accept. Faith is at the bottom of both positions. Your analogy is interesting, but irrelevant.

Faith an "wishing" are not synonyms.

Dante Wodehouse

04-09-2007, 03:58 PM

sorry to bud in, but evolution and creationist do not have similar foundations. a similar foundation would be something like concrete vs brick. creationist have a foundation of straw. straw being the substance that books are made out of, figuratively speaking. evolutionist have the foundation of concrete, concrete being the substance that real life stuff is made out of, like fossils. fossils vs. books. in terms of real evidence, there isnt a question as to which is a better foundation. i agree that evolution needs faith, by faith i mean intellectual trust. creationism needs belief. by belief i mean wishing.

But the fossils don't prove slow, gradual evolution. They show masses of organisms appearing out of nowhere (again, see Cambrian Explosion). You keep calling on the fossils when you must have faith in halfway creatures to believe that the fossils prove evolution.

cuppajoe_9

04-09-2007, 04:00 PM

But the fossils don't prove slow, gradual evolution. They show masses of organisms appearing out of nowhere (again, see Cambrian Explosion).The Cambrian Explosion took about 100 million years.

Dante Wodehouse

04-09-2007, 04:25 PM

I really wish you would analyse it. You'd stop being a creationist for a kick-off. Given that you understand neither mathematics nor biology and appear to have no knowledge at all of physics, I find it mind-boggling that you think there's any way at all you could attack the established science of evolution! Not to mention being able to "dismiss it as an idle fancy"

The 'foolish fancy' may have been excessive on my part, but you are being excessive as well. You assume that I have no grasp of scientific topics (which is like calling me an idiot, which is rude). You also assume that I am a creationist. I am uncertain as to what you mean, but if you mean being a Christian, you will be suprised to find that a great many scientists are Christian, and if you mean that I believe Genesis verbatum then you are incorrect. I am questioning that, just like I am questioning evolution. Established science is always being changed, evolving as it were, but you seem to be angry that I should question evolution, like the anger the inquisition had over heresy.

The Vatican spent over a hundred years, using the finest minds in christianity trying to understand what evolution means to god and religion.

They now accept evolution, but you're going to see it dismissed as an idle fancy.

Ok.

If the NAS does not dissuade me on a scientific issue, the Vatican certainly won't.

See, again you're missing the point. Science is refined by further generations. The science of evolution is being refined all the time. It is not going to be reversed in its tracks and proved wrong in its entirety. To suggest that the earth was created 6010 years ago is to negate all science, not just evolution - you do understand that, don't you?

It would mean that all physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and every physical discipline ever known is completely and utterly wrong. I think YECs forget that - you're not just fighting evolution, you're also fighting the physical laws which say that The Flood can not have happened. You're saying that all known biology is completely wrong. You can't have it both ways.

And you, personally, are going to negate the past 500 years of science one afternoon. Does any of this sound a little odd?

Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.

I didn't say the Earth was created 6010 years ago, nor did I say I was going to disprove evolution in one afternoon. I intend to find what is true, and so far have not heard very convincing things to the support of evolution. You have not given me any reason to believe what you believe, so why should I believe you. Also, Darwin wasn't alive 500 years ago, his theory is less than 200 years old.

And physicists, mathematicians, members of the NAS, Medical doctors and evolution scientists, yep.

The reason I won't give you evidence is precisely as I said - if you wanted to actually learn the truth, you'd try. You'd start by accepting that accepted science is almost always right, or very, very close to being right.

If I thought there was any chance that you'd accept actual scientific facts, I'd let you have them. Your discussion with others, where you are being shown some of these facts, doesn't encourage me that you have any intention of seeing anything which might contradict your notion.

Wrong again. New ideas hardly ever replace old ones. Things change over time as we learn more. What are combustion engines but an improved version of a lever, fulcrum and wheel combined with fire? What is your computer but a fancy abacus? The keyboard working on exactly the same principles as early printing presses. Again I reiterate, accepted science is often updated, but hardly ever proven to be incorrect. Even the "flat-earth" argument falls over. Given the primitive means of measurement, the earth was damn near flat and certainly flat enough to let people think it was flat all over. Once we realised it was round, we thought it was a sphere. That wasn't right either, but it was pretty close. We now know exactly what shape the earth is.

During the past 100 years, methods of identifying ages of substances found on this planet have become remakably accurate - well over 99% accuracy. That can sound like a lot when billions of years are considered, but it's minute. It may be improved to 99.9999999999% accuracy, but it will not be proven to be 100% wrong.

Darwinism is more than just science, it is Earth's history, and history is constantly being refuted, and even if it wasn't, why should I just accept something because others say so? I haven't believed things just because someone I respect told me to since I was 1, so why start now? You have given no reason why I should not search, but you have insulted me without any basis. Also, your reason for denying me evidence is stupid

**SIGH**

You need to realise that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.

It has been well and truly refuted as any kind of fact.

Darwinian evolution has come a long way from Darwin, just as computers have come a long way in the past 30 years. A 1977 computer to run a single payroll schedule took up more floor space than a double bed. Now, you could run ten on your desktop PC at the same time as talking on Skype and writing at a forum, connected to the internet. Technology improves.

You still think that I am basing my claims on Genesis. I have given no reason for this. Technology improves, as do theories, but that doesn't mean that theories should be taken as fact.

Well, I do wish you the very best of luck, because as noted, if you genuinely seek answers, you'll find them alright. They won't do your beliefs any good, though.

Thank you, but the not doing my beliefs good is not necessarily true.

You also need to realise that the fossil record can never be complete. Only the minutest percentage of all animals which lived have been fossilised. Lack of a complete record speaks in favour of the evolutionary time-frame.

Read and enjoy.

Lack of a complete record by no means speaks in favor of an evolutionary time-frame. Where do you get this idea?

hyperborean

04-09-2007, 06:18 PM

How come you cant belive in both? Thats what I would like to know. I belive in both

I believe that something divine created the universe. I don't believe that the divine created man as we see it today with the snap of his fingers.

This thread can go on forever because creationists spin the whole issue. They make it seem as if evolution has nothing supporting it, when if fact their theory is absolute myth. They attack evolution, forgetting that their own theory can never be proven.

I'm not the biggest evolution buff on the forum, but I have read about fossil records (paleontology), geographic distribution of species, and the evidence from molecular biology (proteins and molecules).

here are some good links: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

Nightshade

04-09-2007, 06:22 PM

I believe that something divine created the universe. I don't believe that the divine created man as we see it today with the snap of his fingers.

Oh well we are half way to agreeing completly since I do sort of belive in evoloution I just belive the divine as you put it controls/created evolution.
But I do belive he could have and potentially did create man as we see him today if He wanted that way with the idea of snapping his fingers and thanks Ill look at that list.

The Atheist

04-09-2007, 07:13 PM

The 'foolish fancy' may have been excessive on my part, but you are being excessive as well. You assume that I have no grasp of scientific topics (which is like calling me an idiot, which is rude). You also assume that I am a creationist. I am uncertain as to what you mean, but if you mean being a Christian, you will be suprised to find that a great many scientists are Christian, and if you mean that I believe Genesis verbatum then you are incorrect. I am questioning that, just like I am questioning evolution. Established science is always being changed, evolving as it were, but you seem to be angry that I should question evolution, like the anger the inquisition had over heresy.

I'm calling you a creationist because you believe in creation. Most christians I talk to are well aware that evolution has taken billions of years.

Also, your reason for denying me evidence is stupid

Disagree entirely.

If I thought there was any chance you'd read and understand it, I'd give you all the evidence you wish for. I don't believe that's going to happen and I'm not about to waste my valuable time finding out things which you're quite capable of finding yourself - if you had the desire to find them.

You still think that I am basing my claims on Genesis. I have given no reason for this. Technology improves, as do theories, but that doesn't mean that theories should be taken as fact.

Oh boy. Nobody's asking you to take the theory as fact. If you check the facts, current evolution theory is the only possible option.

Thank you, but the not doing my beliefs good is not necessarily true.

You could certainly retain a belief in god, but you'd lose all of your beliefs about evolution. I do realise that this is precisely why you won't go and check the facts - if you do, you will find that much of what you've been saying is nothing more than lies. Once you find that one of your beliefs is a lie, you'll lose your faith and you are scared of that happening. Faith works so much better with closed eyes.

Lack of a complete record by no means speaks in favor of an evolutionary time-frame. Where do you get this idea?

Very simply.

Fossils only form in very specific circumstances. Well in excess of 99% of all animals which have died did not die in those specific circumstances, so there will only ever be a tiny fraction of fossils to work with. Had the earth been created much later than the current estimate of ~4.5 bn yrs ago, then we would expect to find almost all of the bones of dead animals and we clearly haven't and aren't going to.

The Atheist

04-09-2007, 07:41 PM

Why don't you do us all a favor: rather than tell us how ignorant you think we are, why don't you show us how knowledgable your comments imply you to be - because it really takes zero knowledge, ability or understanding to express how un-knowledgable you believe others to be. Walk the walk you appear to be talking and show us what you know that makes you so confident; telling us how lacking in knowledge we must be really accomplishes nothing of value. I see lots of dismissiveness pointed towards the assertions of other posters, but no "facts" or arguments to rebut them effectively.

I gave you a very good link which also links to further information. I gave you other details to follow up.

As I just said to the other creationist, I'm not about to waste a couple of days sorting evidence into approriate forms for you to read and dismiss.

If you genuinely want to find facts, there are sufficient around for you to find them

*edit*

Evolution will eventually be proven false (because Earth's Architect will show up and silence all argument on the matter :) ). To suggest that the roughly 1.7 million lifeforms on the earth developed out of a single cell is beyond any "fantasy" that the Bible may be accused of presenting and is easily as absurd as the Biblical literalist's insistence of a 6000 year-old earth.

Ridiculous assertion, unbacked by any evidence at all. As to god coming to earth, we've been waiting ~2000 years so far and he hasn't been, despite every relevant piece in the bible suggesting it would be "very soon".

No matter, once you're dead, there'll be another generation of people ready to buy the myth.

Not quite - just the parts that tell us that life came from non-life, that matter came out of nothing, that random chance designed the mind-numbing complexity of all living creatures. Those parts are wrong - but the rest - the stuff about gravity and colds and how earthquakes happen? That stuff's all right (as far as I've heard).

Yet if you accept that earthquakes happen as a result of tectonic plate movement, then you cannot believe a global flood happened - the science only works one way.

What "physical laws" say the flood could not have happened? Besides, if God is behind the flood (the Bible says He was) then so what? He created the physical laws; He can "bend" them when He wishes to accomplish His will (such things are called "miracles"). "All known" biology isn't wrong - just the parts that say life came from non-life and random chance took a single cell and morphed it into the hundreds upon thousands of forms of life now on the earth.

And that's exactly why I won't debate with you or find evidence for you to ignore.

You know the truth, but when in doubt, revert to, "god can change physics as he wants".

Absurd stuff. You believe a "just-so" story from 4000 years ago, but you can't accept actual science from last week.

No odder than people who claim as fact an unproven theory.

Another ridiculous assertion. The theory of evolution has been proven in as many ways as possible. As I said to you, it may well be refined, but it won't be proven wrong if you live to be a million.

500 years of science has not been directed towards the validation of evolution. The theory of evolution is not 500 years old. "Established science" is almost an oxymoron: it is "established" on many things at a fairly stable level; on others, its "establishment" is liable to be revised and "re-established."

I never suggested evolution was 500, I'm talking about science in general and as you're intending to refute all of it, it fits.

Your statement is ridiculous. Every aspect of accepted evolution science has been checked, tested by peers and is accepted fact. Your assertion that it isn't is completely incorrect.

I'm tired of this cop-out. Either you have evidence or you don't; either you have confidence in it or you don't. Quit bluffing and show your cards - because I'm starting to wonder.

See above. Show me one area where you don't revert to "goddidit" when you strike a problem and I'll get you the evidence, no trouble.

Your final sentence is a key one, because it reveals the presuppositional base that you're arguing from; note that you understand that one must first accept your presupposition about science in order for the assertions of evolution to make sense and seem plausible.

Absolute gibberish and 100% wrong.

This could be restated from my side of the coin like this: If you wish for me to "prove" Creation to you, I'll be happy to do so; first we'll need you to accept that 1) God exists and 2) that the Bible is His revelation of Truth.

Again, completely wrong. I can accept that and still see creationism as absurd, as do most christians.

Side note: I loved the qualifiers: "almost always right or very, very close to being right." That's awesome :D

Glad you see it as funny - being the exact opposite of the bible, which has been proven to be completely incorrect in many, many places.

The same could be said about you in terms of considering Creationism or Intelligent Design; the truth is, you are as deeply indoctrinated as the Christians here are.

I'm surprised you don't get sick of being completely wrong. I approached evolution with a completely open mind and arrive at agreement with current theory because it makes sense and has been worked on by some of the greatest minds on the planet.

It is christians who start with a pre-conceived notion, as you yourself have admitted. Please don't try to tar me with your brush - I rely on factual analysis. You rely on ridiculous assertion and tract-quoting.

Again - here you are retreating from the challenge; if you've got evidence, let's see it - quit bluffing.

See above.

Finally, notice again that you have revealed your suppositional requirements for the argument: see things from inside my frame and I'll give you evidence. You're a smart person, because you know, just like I know, that facts can only be considered inside a frame that gives them meaning. Without Naturalism firmly in place as your frame, you know that your evidence has no power.

Again you are so wrong it's laughable.

*edit*

As regards evidence - again, see above.

Facts are not subjective.

Clever but flawed logic. Notice how you "spun" the flat-earth problem by saying essentially "well, since it looked flat to them, it was flat, so science was right." The flat-earth believers were wrong because they based their "facts" on limited observation (they didn't have the entire picture, and were therefore speculating based on their physical observations to fill in the gaps - you know, like evolutionists are doing right now).

Be thankful this isn't a philosophy or logic paper, because you'd be heading into negative marks already. Go read what I wrote and talk about that rather than what you think I wrote.

I love it when people who know little if anything about the Bible tell believers what they need to do - that's pretty silly. Here: What you need to realize is that God wrote the book and it's for real. There: how effective was that? Are you "realizing" even now as you read? Why not?

I'm glad you posted that, because I'd bet any amount of money you like that my biblical knowledge is far superior to your own. You won't get off like that.

"Sensible" because they fit your world-view. Are they still sensible if they say Christ's resurrection was literal? Can a church be partially "sensible" and partially "deluded"?

Depends whether or not they try to dispute known facts.

Neat analogy, but not apt. Darwin's theory has become even less convincing and even adherents admit to some of the difficulties in the theory.

Lemme give you a tip - science has moved a long way from Darwin. That's another problem with creationists - thinking that Darwin is some kind of atheist god. He wasn't, he was a very clever scientist, but his work is somewhat outdated. Given the state of his instrumentation, he was abloody genius to have got as far as he did.

*edit*

The incomplete fossil record is one of the key pieces of evidence that is frustrating evolution's "triumph." Without it to confirm the speculations of evolutionists, the hypothesis of evolution remains speculative. When you're dealing with something you claim to have happened historically, you need more than speculation - you need to have some sort of corroboration - and without the fossil record, you're down a big one.

Here, you're again emphasising your comlplete lack of knowledge about actual evolution science.

Keep putting it that way, though, it's so much easier to assert than think.

And note my previous reply - the lack of fossil record is further proof of evolution being correct.

As to evolution's triumph over creationism, that battle has long since been won, which is why actual churches agree with it. The only dissenters are those few deluded people who listen to, and believe, charismatic preachers who stand and tell lies.

Redzeppelin

04-09-2007, 09:06 PM

I gave you a very good link which also links to further information. I gave you other details to follow up.

Yes, and I read through it. I saw nothing in there that definitively proved anything. I saw lots of descriptions and graphs that suggested a line of developement - but a line that made sense if one proceeded from the supposition that evolution is true; otherwise, there are other explanations for similarities between creatures. Just because two species share a feature (like elbows, for instance) does not necessarily mean they had a common ancestor; it may also imply that a designer equipped both the same because it was an efficient and flexible design.

Here were my favorite parts of the lengthy (and boring) page you sent me to:

It is supposed, then, that the chordates evolved from tunicates
it was presumed that they were the feeding parts of some animal which
It is hard to say why, exactly, the early agnathans had such heavy bony armour on their heads in the first place
It is considered to be transitional between poroforms and true osteolepiforms
it is almost certain from their anatomy
Some of the most significant differences between them, such as warm blood and suckling of young, are not, of course, preserved in the fossil record.

As I just said to the other creationist, I'm not about to waste a couple of days sorting evidence into approriate forms for you to read and dismiss.

Then why bother replying at all? Didn't you already leave this discussion once before? Here (from post #1592):

I am now done with this discussion, so in the unlikely event that you do have a desire to learn, send me a PM and I will show you how to find those facts, but as I stated above, your constant refusal to look at evidence only as long as long as you posit "god" first isn't a search for evidence at all, it's a time-wasting ploy and I'm not about to waste more of my valuable time playing it. You're welcome to take that as a victory, as fundies usually do, but the victory is really in your admission that evidence only exists which accommodates god.

Cheers.

If you've got nothing to add in terms of proof to back up these refutations you think you're doing, why bother re-entering the conversation?

If you genuinely want to find facts, there are sufficient around for you to find them

I came here to hear the evolutionist position and challenge it. Since you seem to be standing on the "winning" side (judging by your rhetoric here), that puts you in the position of clarifying to all of us who remain confused as to why we ought to consider your position valid. You speak as if you know something, but then when pressed, you come up with nothing but brush-offs. That's not how debate works, my friend.

*edit*
Ridiculous assertion, unbacked by any evidence at all. As to god coming to earth, we've been waiting ~2000 years so far and he hasn't been, despite every relevant piece in the bible suggesting it would be "very soon".

The "evidence" in question - like the conclusive "evidence" that establishes the truth of evolution - will be revealed someday soon. I'm not worried about that. I'm not worried about the Bible's "very soon" - any more than I'm sure you're troubled by the words I bold-faced in navy-blue from the evolution page you sent me to.

No matter, once you're dead, there'll be another generation of deluded people ready to buy the myth.

Yes - but thankfully there'll be other Christians here to help them see the light.

Yet if you accept that earthquakes happen as a result of tectonic plate movement, then you cannot believe a global flood happened - the science only works one way.

Sure I can - see? I just did. God isn't confined by science.

And that's exactly why I won't debate with you or find evidence for you to ignore.

Then don't waste my time with these posts that do nothing but tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Give me some sort of real response rather than this repetitive dismissiveness.

You know the truth, but when in doubt, revert to, "god can change physics as he wants".

You're correct there: I do know the Truth. I just can't get you to see it.

Absurd stuff. You believe a "just-so" story from 4000 years ago, but you can't accept actual science from last week.

Sure I can - it just depends on the absurdity of the claim that last week's science is making.

Another ridiculous assertion. The theory of evolution has been proven in as many ways as possible. As I said to you, it may well be refined, but it won't be proven wrong if you live to be a million.

Nothing has been proven - lots of "evidence" has been amassed that has been interpreted to suggest results that fits the theory of evolution. From Dr. Lee Spetner (Ph.D, MIT):

"Random variations cannot lead to the large-scale evolution claimed by the neo-Darwinians...There is a lot of evidence for nonrandom [purposeful, therefore intelligent] variation."

From John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary (evolutionist scientists and authors of The Origins of Life:

"The first replicating molecules, whether nucleic acids or something simpler, could not have specified anything, and so could not be said to carry information. They are best thought of as replicating structures."

Overall, since you say evolution has been "proven in as many ways as possible," why don't you explain how these things have been proven to be true:

1) Life can come from non-life
2) Life can, by itself, bring about new forms of life
3) Eventually, animal life can develop into human life

As far as I know, evolutionists are still scrambling around trying to find enough evidence to make these outlandish claims seem true. Once their literature gets rid of the "could be" "maybe" "almost" "it is presumed" and all the other qualifiers that suggest that "were still making educated guesses" then maybe we'll have something worth considering.

I never suggested evolution was 500, I'm talking about science in general and as you're intending to refute all of it, it fits.

Perhaps you ought read the posts addressed to you more carefully - I don't believe anybody here intends to prove all of science wrong.

Your statement is ridiculous. Every aspect of accepted evolution science has been checked, tested by peers and is accepted fact. Your assertion that it isn't is completely incorrect.

At least that's what you say and would like us to believe. Tell me: how do you "check" an event that reportedly occurred billions of years ago? Because without verification of that event, all else is educated speculation.

See above. Show me one area where you don't revert to "goddidit" when you strike a problem and I'll get you the evidence, no trouble.

Well, what should I say if indeed, God did do it?

Absolute gibberish and 100% wrong.

Offer some argument or evidence to back up this unsubstantiated claim.

Again, completely wrong. I can accept that and still see creationism as absurd, as do most christians.

"Most Christians"? Really? And your statistics for this number come from where?

Glad you see it as funny - being the exact opposite of the bible, which has been proven to be completely incorrect in many, many places.

I've heard this one before. How does one "prove the Bible wrong"?

I'm surprised you don't get sick of being completely wrong. I approached evolution with a completely open mind and arrive at agreement with current theory because it makes sense and has been worked on by some of the greatest minds on the planet.

I'd get sick of being proven wrong if it happened with regularity (luckily, it hasn't occurred in this conversation yet, aside from claims to the contrary). Your denial is stunning: you more than likely went to school somewhere, and that school more than likely gave you textbooks that spoke of evolution as a given fact (despite all its holes, inconsistencies and unproven claims); you - my friend - grew up just as indoctrinated as I - but you refuse to acknowledge that; I at least will admit to that fact. Your so-called "open mind" was already conditioned by years of a naturalistic foundation that you now stand upon and that decides what evidence you find compelling.

Some of the greatest minds on the planet have pronounced evolution wrong too - so what?

It is christians who start with a pre-conceived notion, as you yourself have admitted. Please don't try to tar me with your brush - I rely on factual analysis. You rely on ridiculous assertion and tract-quoting.

Sorry - Christians don't have a lock on philosophical presuppositions - atheists have them too; the most clear-sighted IMO will admit such. You and I both select facts, sources and evidence that fits into our already established position.

Again you are so wrong it's laughable.

The feeling is mutual, trust me.

Mate, I seriously hope you grow up one day and look back at this stuff, because my seven-year old has a better knowledge of how science actually works than you do.

Bravo for him - but again, don't all parents think their kids are the best? I know I feel the same about my kids.

Facts are not subjective.

Facts, no; interpretations of said facts, absolutely.

Be thankful this isn't a philosophy or logic paper, because you'd be heading into negative marks already. Go read what I wrote and talk about that rather than what you think I wrote.

Well, I'm not sure what qualifies you as an expert on philosophy or logic - so I'll pass on the grade for now, thanks.

I'm glad you posted that, because I'd bet any amount of money you like that my biblical knowledge is far superior to your own. You won't get off like that.

"Knowing" (i.e. I've read it and know the factual contents) the Bible and understanding it (especially its spiritual ramifications) are two different things. Confusing the two is a serious mistake.

Lemme give you a tip - science has moved a long way from Darwin. That's another problem with creationists - thinking that Darwin is some kind of atheist god. He wasn't, he was a very clever scientist, but his work is somewhat outdated. Given the state of his instrumentation, he was abloody genius to have got as far as he did.

You originally brought up Darwin - not me. He was smart - he even predicted the flaws in his position that scientists are still trying to solve.

I wish you could do that.

And yet, somehow, we still manage to communicate.

Here, you're again emphasising your comlplete lack of knowledge about actual evolution science.

So you say.

And note my previous reply - the lack of fossil record is further proof of evolution being correct.

And how might that work?

As to evolution's triumph over creationism, that battle has long since been won, which is why actual churches agree with it. The only dissenters are those few deluded people who listen to, and believe, charismatic preachers who stand and tell lies.

"Long since won" eh? Hyperbole will get you no where. Evolution has not definitively proven anything. It makes the amature arguer's mistake of assuming that mounds of evidence can overwhelm an opponent into thinking that so much "evidence" must mean a solid argument. No such thing - sorry.

The only real "liars" in this argument are high-school textbooks.

Scheherazade

04-09-2007, 09:22 PM

Reminder

Inflammatory comments will get you banned from the Forum temporarily / permanently.

Please discuss the subject matter, not each other.

hyperborean

04-10-2007, 10:22 AM

I have to say that "The Atheist" concluded this debate in my eyes. As evolutionists provide factual evidence, creationists use the desperate "god did it" and the "god will prove you wrong".

The Atheist is open minded. He chooses not to believe in myths and he explores the mysteries of mankind using science. If only the rest of mankind would be more like him. Instead we have people concluding that a spirit is behind all the things we can't explain.

Redzeppelin

04-10-2007, 10:42 AM

I have to say that "The Atheist" concluded this debate in my eyes. As evolutionists provide factual evidence, creationists use the desperate "god did it" and the "god will prove you wrong".

Debatable.

(The "God will prove you wrong" response is only silly if it isn't true. We've yet to establish that it's not.)

The Atheist is open minded. He chooses not to believe in myths and he explores the mysteries of mankind using science. If only the rest of mankind would be more like him. Instead we have people concluding that a spirit is behind all the things we can't explain.

Equally debatable.

"Open minded" appears to mean in your post "I agree with him." Not the criteria I would say that correctly identifies an "open mind."

Virgil

04-10-2007, 10:50 AM

The Atheist is open minded. He chooses not to believe in myths
:lol: I'm not in this debate, but I thought those two sentences were funny. Complete contradictions. Before you jump on me, hyperborean, I believe in evolution.

Redzeppelin

04-10-2007, 10:55 AM

:lol: I'm not in this debate, but I thought those two sentences were funny. Complete contradictions. Before you jump on me, hyperborean, I believe in evolution.

Good call, Virgil. I wish I'd caught that irony and pointed it out! :)

hyperborean

04-10-2007, 12:34 PM

Virgil

04-10-2007, 12:37 PM

I did word it wrong,

I'm only teasing you, hyper. ;) Despite our diferences, you're OK in my book. :)

hyperborean

04-10-2007, 12:55 PM

I'm only teasing you, hyper. ;) Despite our diferences, you're OK in my book. :)

Glad to hear it;)

Redzeppelin

04-10-2007, 03:16 PM

I did word it wrong, and put the two phrases in the same sentence. He is open minded in the sense that most atheists have already reevaluated the myths brought upon them by society.

def of open-minded: "Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas"

Christianity would be the old idea...evolution being the new one. You on the other hand show no receptiveness at all when it comes to evolution.

You have no idea what I'm open to - you assume. As a theory, evolution makes a certain amount of sense. However - just like the evolutionists/atheists who claim they need more "proof" to believe in God - I need some of the "gaps" in evolution filled before the theory seems reasonable to me. Either way - the Christian is less concerned with "fitting in" to the world's logic than he is in obeying God - entrance into heaven isn't granted because you were "right" all the time, or because you "knew" everything - it's based on your faith and your obedience.

HannibalBarca

04-12-2007, 06:51 PM

I think that there was no Adam and Eve, that it is just a fable that someone came up with to convince people to not defy the Almighty

andave_ya

04-12-2007, 07:36 PM

That's the core of the battle between evolution and creation. Man doesn't want to acknowledge God and therefore people believe in evolution yet turn a blind eye to its fallacies. I can understand that to some, God seems like a needless complication to life but because He has saved me I know otherwise.

cuppajoe_9

04-12-2007, 07:47 PM

Man doesn't want to acknowledge God and therefore people believe in evolution yet turn a blind eye to its fallacies. I can understand that to some, God seems like a needless complication to life but because He has saved me I know otherwise.This is, I must say, a fairly useless comment. First of all, acceptance of the theory evolution does not entail atheism. Ken Miller, for example, is both a brilliant evolutionary biologist and a Roman Catholic. Second, atheism does not require acceptance of the theory of evolution (take a look at David Hume, for one, who died thirty years before Darwin was born). Third atheists are not people who don't "want to acknowledge God" or people to whom "God seems like a needless complication to life", they are people who don't believe in God.

Seriously, we've got enough ad hominem arguments on this thread as it is.

andave_ya

04-12-2007, 08:12 PM

I apologize for annoying you but I don't budge from what I say. Yes, you can believe that all the Bible is correct except Genesis and still be a Christian. But, if one doesn't believe the first book of the Bible is legit, what makes the other books true? The next logical step would be to say that the Resurrection is impossible. Then the entire purpose of God and Christianity would fall apart because Jesus' Resurrection is the core of my faith.

And furthermore, a nice sort of witness I'd be if I believed in both the Bible and in something contradictory to it.

I'm afraid I didn't clarify. I didn't mean that all atheists are evolutionists; rather, I've read accounts of atheists who disbelieve evolution because of a lack of proof but didn't believe in creation either.

I'm not qualified to talk about what atheists believe because I don't know any personally. I never even talked about atheists in my post! As you say, they don't believe in God because they refuse to acknowledge He exists. Does that make my stand a little more sharply defined?

Dante Wodehouse

04-12-2007, 09:21 PM

Atheism doesn't require evolution, but evolution is the most powerful engine of atheism invented. It allows one to be an intellectual atheist, whereas the previous scientists were attempting to understand God.

cuppajoe_9

04-12-2007, 09:59 PM

Yes, you can believe that all the Bible is correct except Genesis and still be a Christian. But, if one doesn't believe the first book of the Bible is legit, what makes the other books true?One could interpret it as a metaphor. Or an alegory.

The next logical step would be to say that the Resurrection is impossible. Then the entire purpose of God and Christianity would fall apart because Jesus' Resurrection is the core of my faith.This would be an example of the slippery slope logical fallicy. Catholics still believed in the Resurrection last time I checked.

I'm not qualified to talk about what atheists believe because I don't know any personally. I never even talked about atheists in my post!Well perhaps I was reading into it a bit too deeply, but that's who I thought you were refering to when you said that man refuses to acknowledge God.

As you say, they don't believe in God because they refuse to acknowledge He exists.No, that's not what I said. Refusal to acknowledge that God exists would require a) that God exists and b) a fairly large body of evidence of this fact that one might ignore. a is in question, and b simply isn't there. Refusal to acknowledge God's existence requires theism.

It allows one to be an intellectual atheist...Because (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume) there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_D%27Holbach) were (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes) no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza) intellectual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Christoph_Lichtenberg) atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Bysshe_Shelley) before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot) Darwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha).

...whereas the previous scientists were attempting to understand God.Nope. They were attempting to understand nature. Previous philosophers were trying to understand God (or gods, depending on which philosphers), but natural philosophy (alias science) has never had much to do with God.

the fett man

04-13-2007, 10:33 AM

[QUOTE=Dyrwen;53370]Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It only has to do with how life evolved over time to become what it is today. [QUOTE]

Well just to let you know evolution has everyhting to do with life because if it didn't then what are we doing here. really if you want my opinion i think you don't know what you believe in and that you are completely confused on the subject of life its self.

This would be an example of the slippery slope logical fallicy. Catholics still believed in the Resurrection last time I checked.

well actually cuppajoe_9 you are wrong because the whole point of the resurection is the fact that he broke the gap from humans to god. the whole popint of christ dying on the cross was so that we didn't have to go through a prest to talk to him and last time i checked the cathlics believed that they are not worthy enouph to talk to god himself so they pray to mary and all of the saints and they rely on them talking their prayers to god and taht is not what the resurection is about.
So they might believe that it happened but they don't actually belive in it the porpose of it.

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 02:30 PM

Well just to let you know evolution has everyhting to do with life because if it didn't then what are we doing here.No. The theory of evolution describes how animals speciate and adapt to their environment. The hypotheses of abiogenesis describe how life may have originated on earth. The two concepts are quite seperate.

the whole popint of christ dying on the cross was so that we didn't have to go through a prest to talk to him and last time i checked the cathlics believed that they are not worthy enouph to talk to god himself so they pray to mary and all of the saints and they rely on them talking their prayers to god and taht is not what the resurection is about.What? I was raised Catholic, friend. They pray to God (and Jesus, and the saints). They believe in the literal truth of the resurrection of Jesus' body from the grave.

So they might believe that it happened but they don't actually belive in it the porpose of it.What I am talking about it whether or not they believe it happened. The differences between Catholic and Protestant interpretations of the Resurrection are not strictly relevant to my point.

Redzeppelin

04-13-2007, 05:11 PM

One could interpret it as a metaphor. Or an alegory.

Yep - or one could take it litarally. We choose the latter.

This would be an example of the slippery slope logical fallicy. Catholics still believed in the Resurrection last time I checked.

Not necessarily. If you remove a foundational piece of a highly integrated work, it is possible to start an avalanche of sorts. andave_ya is speaking of the unity of the Bible. The Bible presents a unified picture - once you start pulling pieces out and discarding them or reinterpreting them to where they alter the picture of Who God Is, then all other miracles in the Bible are subject to such revision. It's hard for me to explain this in a clear way, because it involves the arc of the entire Bible - but it all links together.

No, that's not what I said. Refusal to acknowledge that God exists would require a) that God exists and b) a fairly large body of evidence of this fact that one might ignore. a is in question, and b simply isn't there. Refusal to acknowledge God's existence requires theism.

This is because of the presuppositional natures of our two positions: yours is that God doesn't exist; ours is that He does; therefore, it is perfectly accurate to use the language andave_ya uses - because the Bible makes it clear that all humans have an internal "knowledge" or at least an awareness (of sorts) of God. From the Christian perspective, there is no framework that exists outside Him. To say He doesn't exist is to refuse to acknowledge what the Bible claims you know - even if only at a subconscious level.

Nope. They were attempting to understand nature. Previous philosophers were trying to understand God (or gods, depending on which philosphers), but natural philosophy (alias science) has never had much to do with God.

At least after the Enlightenment. Before then they had a bit closer relationship. But the Enlightenment was when science decided that it no longer needed the knowledge gained through spirituality - which is why it will always lack part of the picture when it claims to have assessed exactly what "reality" is.

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 06:46 PM

Yep - or one could take it litarally. We choose the latter.You're quite welcome to. That isn't the issue, however. The point is that the theory of evolution does not necessarily demand that Genesis be untrue, just allegorical.

If you remove a foundational piece of a highly integrated work, it is possible to start an avalanche of sorts.I suppose it's possible, but andave suggests that it is necessary.

To say He doesn't exist is to refuse to acknowledge what the Bible claims you know - even if only at a subconscious level.This is not, I must say, very impressive reasoning.

1. Everybody knows, even if subconciously, that God exists.
2. We know this, because it says so in the Bible.
3. We know the Bible is reliable because it was inspired by God.
4. We know that God exists because everybody, even if subconciously, knows that God exists.

And we have now completed a playful circle. Anthropology, however, has a bone to pick with P1. Children raised in atheist families do not readily understand the concept of a God. A study of the wretchedly poor underclasses of Victorian England found that many children did not know who God is or what he does.

...which is why it will always lack part of the picture when it claims to have assessed exactly what "reality" is.Show me the scientist who claims to "have assessed exactly what 'reality' is".

andave_ya

04-13-2007, 06:47 PM

One could interpret it as a metaphor. Or an alegory.

The same thing would hold then. If Genesis is a metaphor or an allegory, why wouldn't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John be metaphors or allegories?

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 06:49 PM

The same thing would hold then. If Genesis is a metaphor or an allegory, why wouldn't Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John be metaphors or allegories?

Because they have (allegedly) more historical support than Genesis, perhaps? It's still a slipperly slope fallicy. Catholics hold the concepts of an allegorical Genesis and a literal Luke in their heads quite comfortably.

ruhbr_ducky

04-13-2007, 07:52 PM

Evolution is a hypothosis based on the theory of spontaneous generation,
which is contrary to a proven law of science. The law of biogenesis meaning
that living things can only come from other living things. Another is the
cell principle, which states that all living things are divided into cells and that
cells come only from preexisting cells. These are tried and proven laws and
principles accepted in the scientific world. Not anyones oppinion.So if you
believe the Bible or not isn't important, however, the fact that evolution
couldn't of even occured is.

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 08:03 PM

Evolution is a hypothosis based on the theory of spontaneous generationNo, evolution is a theory and it does not in any way depend on abiogenesis.

The law of biogenesis meaning
that living things can only come from other living things. Another is the
cell principle, which states that all living things are divided into cells and that
cells come only from preexisting cells. These are tried and proven laws and
principles accepted in the scientific world. Not anyones oppinion.They are also arguments from ignorance:

1. It is not known how life can originate from non-life.
2. Therefore, life cannot originate from non-life.

1. All known examles of life are divided into cells.
2. Therefore, life cannot exist unless divided into cells.

Kind of an 'all rats have tails' problem.

So if you believe the Bible or not isn't important, however, the fact that evolution couldn't of even occured is.But, again, you are talking about abiogenesis. Not evolution.

ruhbr_ducky

04-13-2007, 08:37 PM

Evolution is based on abiogensis, and for it to be a theory it would have to stand the test of time and would be verified by experiment after experiment.
Evolution has never once been verified. It is therfore a hypothesis.

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 08:40 PM

Evolution is based on abiogensis...Not it is not.

and for it to be a theory it would have to stand the test of time and would be verified by experiment after experiment.That is correct. Guess what? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

ruhbr_ducky

04-13-2007, 08:44 PM

did you really expect me to read all that?

ruhbr_ducky

04-13-2007, 08:44 PM

so what would you say evolution is based on?

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 08:45 PM

Tell you what, read any of it.

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 08:45 PM

so what would you say evolution is based on?Readily observable evidence of common descent, for a start.

ruhbr_ducky

04-13-2007, 08:48 PM

and what would you say is readily observable?

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 08:52 PM

The genomes of E. coli, Pan paniscus and Homo spaiens sapiens have been fully sequenced and are available for your comparison, if you have the time.

ruhbr_ducky

04-13-2007, 09:03 PM

your Homo erectus is also a bad argument most have been proven to be frauds and others only awaiting and yet still others that have been proven to be frauds and people still cling to them as proof.

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 09:04 PM

I didn't even mention Homo erectus?

ruhbr_ducky

04-13-2007, 09:04 PM

I am not sure what you mean by the genomes of E. coli, so far I've never heard that argument?

ruhbr_ducky

04-13-2007, 09:06 PM

what I ment by that is that all of the so called remains have been proven to be either 100% animal or 100% human.

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 09:10 PM

E. coli was one of the first species to have its genome decoded (the entire pattern of proteins in its DNA is known, in other words). The same has been done to humans and to bonobos, as well as thousands of other species. Not only do these three species use the same 22 amino acids out of a possible 390 naturally occuring ones, but signifigant strands of DNA are identical in all three species. If you accept the principle that common gentic material implies ancestry, this is a hard thing to get over if you would like to disprove the theory of evolution.

ruhbr_ducky

04-13-2007, 09:25 PM

That still dosn't prove evolution.You are missing the basic fact that life can not reproduce except by life. Nothing can come from nothing. Simularities do not make proff.And if you believe this line of reasoning why are there no transitional forms?

cuppajoe_9

04-13-2007, 09:29 PM

And you are still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution. You can believe that God, chemical soup, aliens or whatever you like resulted in the first life form on earth, but after that, I can show you common descent for every organism.

And if you believe this line of reasoning why are there no transitional forms?Hey, look! Hundreds of transitional forms! (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)

ruhbr_ducky

04-13-2007, 09:45 PM

Evolution had to begin somewhere, I have seen no other explination as to how it began other that abiogenesis.So in my book it is abiogenesis. If you feel differently please explain how it began, I'd be happy to understant.
Also I'am not interested in your websites I want to here the argument from you.

I also have no interest in aliens or chemical soup. Only the truth.

just a question how many classes have you taken on this subject?

another question do you believe the punctuated equilibrium?

Adolescent09

04-13-2007, 10:32 PM

It surprises me how heated these debates become (after I post this it will be the 1713th reply in this topic). If we could truly accept the fact that some people believe in God and Creation while others believe in "Evolution" why would we have to incessantly debate on the matter? I've seen some eloquently written posts in this thread, some of which have progressively strong points to support their opinions, but it appears (to me at least) outright ridiculous to go on back and forth, back and forth on which view appears more plausible. I personally believe in both creation and evolution... I believe Providence created the creatures which encompassed the earth and evolution biologically tweaked God's creatures to adapt with capricious environmental changes (Giraffe neck growth over centuries and land turtles to armadillos for an example..)

cuppajoe_9

04-14-2007, 01:49 AM

Evolution had to begin somewhere, I have seen no other explination as to how it began other that abiogenesis.So in my book it is abiogenesis. If you feel differently please explain how it began, I'd be happy to understant.I don't know how it began. Neither does anybody. It doesn't matter, because it happens.

Also I'am not interested in your websites I want to here the argument from you.You're getting the argument from me. The websites contain the evidence.

just a question how many classes have you taken on this subject?Whether I've never taken a class or whether I'm Emiritus Professor of Biology at Oxford University has no relevance to my argument. If you're interested, however, I finished high school biology and read a few books out of personal interest.

another question do you believe the punctuated equilibrium?It seems to be the way things work, yes.

I've seen some eloquently written posts in this thread, some of which have progressively strong points to support their opinions, but it appears (to me at least) outright ridiculous to go on back and forth, back and forth on which view appears more plausible.As for myself, I stay here because it forces me to stay educated about biological evolution, not because I really think I'm going to convince anybody.

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 01:03 PM

Well I'll start with your punctuated equilibrium hypothesis.According to this idea, new kinds of oraganisms arise as a result of drastic environmental changes, which bring about rapid genetic changes in small groups of animals and plants.Some even go as far as to state that drastic genetic restructurings called macromutations that suddenly change one kind of creature into another.(1 What proof do you have that there was a sudden drastic enviromental change that would cause macromutation?(2 mutations are not an improvement in an organisms it is always harmful and distructive.

This is nothing but a way to side step the fact that there are no true transitional forms.

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 01:12 PM

However,it matters greatly how it began. This is the whole question of the matter. You stated that you do not know, neither does evolution. It only provides more questions,not awnsers.I want to give ya some more quotes.
This is by Thomas Henery Huxley, an accredited scientist," If the hypothesis of evolution be true,living matter must have originated from non-living matter
for,by that hypothesis, the conditions on the globe were at one time such that living matter could not have existed, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state."

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 01:13 PM

Lorande Woodruff (Biology, Yale University) states it thus:" We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as observation and experimentation are concerned, no form of life exists today except from pre-existing life."

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 01:32 PM

I have two other problems for ya.(1 What about the plant life? There are no signs of evolutionary, or otherwise.C.A. Arnold said this," As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."
Also what about you "simularity equals connection" hypothesis? Take for instance Eohippus or "dawn horse," the linage runs thus from "dawn horse" to "modern horse," goes like this, Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs, but its supposed descendant Orohippus had only 15 pairs;a later stage in the "tree,"
Pliohippus, had 19 pairs of ribs, while the modern horse has 18 pairs of ribs. Such jumping back and forth, with ribs disappearing and reappearing like magic, is a strong indication that the "horse series" is actually a collection of unrelated mammals that share a smiliar overall body plan.
Somewhat like your human,ape, E. coli.

cuppajoe_9

04-14-2007, 01:45 PM

(1 What proof do you have that there was a sudden drastic enviromental change that would cause macromutation?Observation. We can see observe animals that have experienced sudden, drastic, environmental changes and the ensuing speciation. For example, we can compare those organisms on volcanic islands with those on continental islands. The organisms on volcanic islands, who would've had to wind up there by accident, can be shown to have diverged greatly from their ancestors because of the difference between the continental environment and the sea-locked environment. Species on continental islands, however, are relatively close in physiology and genetics to their ancestors, because a continental island's environment doesn't change much when it seperates from the mainland. Check out the differences in the animal populations between, say, Vancouver Island and Hawaii.

(2 mutations are not an improvement in an organisms it is always harmful and distructive.Demonstrably false. We've observed organisms speciating due to beneficial mutations, as in the HIV, for example.

However,it matters greatly how it began. This is the whole question of the matter. You stated that you do not know, neither does evolution.Fortunately, it doesn't need to. The theory of evolution by natural selection describes how all life on earth originally speicated from a common ancestor. Where that ancestor came from is entirely secondary.

An illustration: most evolutionary biologists assume that abiogenesis occured because the conditions on early earth were such that self-replicating organic molecules were formed which, over the course of millions of years, evolved into the first cells. Suppose, however, the hypothesis suggested by the film Mission to Mars was shown to be correct, and the first organisms on earth were actually put there my martian scientists. Modern biologists would certainly be surprised, but would they have to throw out their taxonomy tree? No, of course not, because the fact that organisms evolve and speciate through the process of natural selection does not depend on the current assumtion of abiogenesis from self-replicating organic molecules.

Another illustration: the theory of gravity is, to put it one way, generally accepted among physicists. How gravity actually works, however, is deeply mysterious. The best current hypothesis, in my limited understanding, is Loop Quantum Gravity which, if you try to understand it, will give you a raging headache. There are numerous competing hypotheses for the mechanics of gravity, however, and nothing is difinitely settled as to how gravitation actually takes place. This does not, however, change the fact that whenever you drop an object it travels at a certain number of meters per second per second towards the centre of the earth until somehow impeded.

Incompleteness is not proof of defect for the theory of gravity, and it is not proof of defect for the theory of evolution.

This is by Thomas Henery Huxley, an accredited scientist," If the hypothesis of evolution be true,living matter must have originated from non-living matter
for,by that hypothesis, the comditions on the globe were at one time such that living matter could not have existed, life being entirely incompatible with the gaseous state."Well he may be an accredited scientist, but I hope he's not a biologist, because evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis, and it does not depend on abiogenesis.

Lorande Woodruff (Biology, Yale University) states it thus:" We thus reach the general conclusion that, so far as observation and experimentation are concerned, no form of life exists today except from pre-existing life."Translation: we don't know. Yet.

cuppajoe_9

04-14-2007, 01:51 PM

(1 What about the plant life? There are no signs of evolutionary, or otherwise.C.A. Arnold said this," As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present."Again, I don't know who C.A. Arnold is, but I hope he's not a biologist, because that is simply false. We've traced the taxonomy of the plant kingdom the same way we've traced the taxonomy of the animal kingdom.

Also what about you "simularity equals connection" hypothesis? Take for instance Eohippus or "dawn horse," the linage runs thus from "dawn horse" to "modern horse," goes like this, Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs, but its supposed descendant Orohippus had only 15 pairs;a later stage in the "tree,"Evolution = more ribs, now? The question is not one of 'similarity', we can trace inhereted genetic markers as a way of confirming physiolgical similarity, and it almost always works. In addition, most fossilized transitional forms, by necesity of probability, are not actual ancestors, but rather closely related evolutionary 'side-branches' that went extinct.

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 01:54 PM

Ok I went and looked at the website, try looking into old tales of original tribes, most have a story concerning a world wide flood,sometimes the details are different but it is generally the same story. So if you don't believe the Bible you might try listening to them.Study tip, start with the Tower of Babel.

cuppajoe_9

04-14-2007, 01:57 PM

What makes you think I haven't studied the Bible?

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 02:04 PM

There isn't any where in the world that you can observe animals in speciation you can only speculate that it happened that way, no proof. That is merely
an example of natural selection. ALSO THE BEGINING IS VERY IMPORTANT,ELSE YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT THAT YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS EVEN CREDIBLE!!!

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 02:06 PM

I didn't say you didn't study the Bible, I said if you don't believe it.

cuppajoe_9

04-14-2007, 02:06 PM

There isn't any where in the world that you can observe animals in speciation you can only speculate that it happened that way, no proof.Yes, we can. We observed the speciation of the HIV. You may have heard something about it in the news.

That is merely an example of natural selection.Umm...yes.

ALSO THE BEGINING IS VERY IMPORTANT,ELSE YOU HAVE NO SUPPORT THAT YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS EVEN CREDIBLE!!!You can just read my previous post again if you want me to tell you why this is wrong.

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 02:07 PM

the ribs were a point that the linage isn't logical.

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 02:09 PM

natural selection does not mean evolution.
We clearly have a different meaning of the term.

cuppajoe_9

04-14-2007, 02:10 PM

the ribs were a point that the linage isn't logical.There is no reason to assume that the number of ribs could not go back and fourth due to environmental changes that, for whatever reason, made it advantageous to have greater or fewer ribs.

cuppajoe_9

04-14-2007, 02:11 PM

natural selection does not mean evolution.
No, but it is the process by which evolution happens.

Would you mind terribly trying to keep all the points you want to make at a given time in one post? It clutters up the boards. Thank you.

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 02:14 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to clutter, thought just come to me.
Natural Selection has absolutly nothing, what so ever ,to do with evolution

cuppajoe_9

04-14-2007, 02:16 PM

Natural Selection has absolutly nothing, what so ever ,to do with evolutionInteresting how the book in which the theory was first described is a book about evolution then, eh?

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 03:30 PM

That book has nothing to do with the meaning of the term natural selection.
It is a self evident truth-an animal well-suited to its enviroment is certainly more likely to thrive than an animal poorly suited to its enviroment.Darwin
believed that natural selection would act upon the variety that naturally occurs within kinds to gradually produce new kinds.This reasoning is faulty because variety within kinds has definite boundaries-which was a fact Darwin was not even aware of.Natural selection acts to preserve existing kinds, not create new kinds.

cuppajoe_9

04-14-2007, 04:59 PM

That book has nothing to do with the meaning of the term natural selection.Darwin invented the term, he can define it how he likes.

Darwin believed that natural selection would act upon the variety that naturally occurs within kinds to gradually produce new kinds.This reasoning is faulty because variety within kinds has definite boundaries-which was a fact Darwin was not even aware of.Natural selection acts to preserve existing kinds, not create new kinds.You're going to have to define the term 'kinds' a little better. Do you mean species? Genuses? Kingdoms?

Adolescent09

04-14-2007, 05:01 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to clutter, thought just come to me.
Natural Selection has absolutly nothing, what so ever ,to do with evolution

It's quite hilarious how absolutely wrong you are. Natural Selection is the REASON for Evolution. The fundamental process of Natural selection in biology is the reason Evolution exists... Even I know that for sure.. :p

Adolescent09

04-14-2007, 05:03 PM

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 05:24 PM

We could debate this subject to the end of the world, so I am going to state
my truth clearly, as best I can.

I do not accept evolution on the basis that it is an unfounded and baseless hypothesis.It goes against 3 universally accepted laws and principles,(1 being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it states that for every process,there is an overall loss of useful energy and a tendency toward greater disorder(this is the opposite of evolution.) (2 being the Law of Biogenesis, that states that living things can only come from other living things. Evolution has no other explination other than abiogenesis. This begining is very important, it is the basic question behind creation vs. evolution.(3 being the cell princple, that
states that all living things are composed of living units called cells and of cell products and that all cells come from preexisting cells.Not even the simplest of oranisms can develop from nonliving matter,that is on the authority of Louis Pasteur.

Scientific facts exist.Answers to scientific question exists.Evolution doesn't
offer any facts or proof that can or will hold up to scientific observation or experimentation.Most evolutionist conceed to this point.

I do not accept the evolutionists geologic column because there is not a single place on the earth where you can go and see the geologic column.
It is only a tool in circular reasoning ,there is no objective way to look at a sample of sedimentary rock and determine its age.There are no "Missing Links"
as evolutionists present, all "transitional form" have been proven to be either 100% human or 100% animal, no 50-50.
Variety within kinds generally results from preexisting genetic variety(genes that were present from the beginning),and that there are fixed limits to biological change.Mutations cause genetic information to be lost, not gained,so the rules out the puntuated equilibrium."The chance that highter life forms might have emereged in this way [by mutations and natural selection] is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard migh assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein"-Sir Fred Hoyle,astronomer.
As for the slower version of evolution it would require that all structures had to develop one small step at a time, while remaining fully functional at every step.For example evolutionists believe that the four-chambered heart of birds and mammals evolved from the one-chambered heart of invertebrates.Obviously,the heart sould not cease to function at any time during this transition, for the animal would quicky die without a functioning heart.This is a quote from Darwin himself"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possible have been formed by numerous,successive,slight modifications,my theory would absolutely break down." Ok here is an example of his organ,take the bat ,evolutionists teach that bats evolved from small,four-legged,rodentlike mammal similar to the modern shrews.However,a bat's wing are composed of extraordinarily long finger bones conected by a thin web of skin.In order for a shrew's forepaws to gradually become wings, the forepaws would become useless for grasping or running long before they would be able to fly. Darwin's theory destroyed.

I do however accept the Genesis record that God created the heavens and the earth, including all that they contain, in six literal days(for ya'll who know latin check it out, the translation of the word means literal 24 hr. days.)God spoke that dosen't need non-living matter to living matter, it is so much simpler.I believe the King James Bible is the complete and literal word of God,
it states"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."-Genesis 1:1.Try reading the first 2 chapters.Any questions concerning this I'd be happy to try and find an answer. Thanx, ruhbr_ducky

ruhbr_ducky

04-14-2007, 05:33 PM

Kind means a group of similar organisms that are all decsended from a single group of originally created animals and may refer to a species, a genus, or a family.As a general rule,members of the same kind are biologically capable of producing fertile offspring,although they may not interbreed at all in nature because of geographical or behavioral differences. Defined enough?

cuppajoe_9

04-14-2007, 08:42 PM

(1 being the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it states that for every process,there is an overall loss of useful energy and a tendency toward greater disorder(this is the opposite of evolution.)Creative, but no. The Second Law predicts a tendency towards disorder in a closed system, which the earth is not. It is constantly being bombared with radiant energy. From the sun.

(2 being the Law of Biogenesis, that states that living things can only come from other living things. Evolution has no other explination other than abiogenesis. This begining is very important, it is the basic question behind creation vs. evolution.(3 being the cell princple, that
states that all living things are composed of living units called cells and of cell products and that all cells come from preexisting cells.Not even the simplest of oranisms can develop from nonliving matter,that is on the authority of Louis Pasteur.I've already dealt with the abiogenesis straw-man several times now.

Even if you're Louis Pasteur, it is not logically possible to prove that something can't be done.

.Evolution doesn't offer any facts or proof that can or will hold up to scientific observation or experimentation.Most evolutionist conceed to this point.An outrageous lie. I've linked you to a site which provides several of the predictions that evolution makes, the evidence that bears these predictions out, and possible falsifications thereof. You may read it at your pleasure.

I do not accept the evolutionists geologic column because there is not a single place on the earth where you can go and see the geologic column.So what? There are plenty of place where you can go to see bits and pieces of the geological column, and these can be pieced together using radiometric dating and other independant confirmations.

There are no "Missing Links" as evolutionists present, all "transitional form" have been proven to be either 100% human or 100% animal, no 50-50.This is becaue you don't know what a 'missing link' (or, more properly, transitional form) looks like. If we have a fossilized organism with traits AAAA and a fossilized organism with traits BBBB, then the transitional forms are organisms AAAB, AABB, and ABBB. You're looking for a organism A/B A/B A/B A/B, which would be inviable and doesn't exist. In addition, the human/animal distinction has no scientific value. Humans are animals, in the biological sense.

Mutations cause genetic information to be lost, not gained,so the rules out the puntuated equilibrium."Beneficial mutations have been observed to cause speciation, in both the wild and in the lab, in both unicellular and more complex organims.

Ok here is an example of his organ,take the bat ,evolutionists teach that bats evolved from small,four-legged,rodentlike mammal similar to the modern shrews.However,a bat's wing are composed of extraordinarily long finger bones conected by a thin web of skin.In order for a shrew's forepaws to gradually become wings, the forepaws would become useless for grasping or running long before they would be able to fly. Darwin's theory destroyed.Why couldn't the shrew go through a number of flying-squirrel-like stages on its way to being a bat? I can deal with as many arguments from lack of imagination as you're willing to think up.

I do however accept the Genesis record that God created the heavens and the earth, including all that they contain, in six literal days(for ya'll who know latin check it out, the translation of the word means literal 24 hr. days.)God spoke that dosen't need non-living matter to living matter, it is so much simpler.I believe the King James Bible is the complete and literal word of God, it states"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."-Genesis 1:1.Try reading the first 2 chapters.Any questions concerning this I'd be happy to try and find an answer.I've read them. However, I have a proposition for you: I will reread one book of the Bible of your choice for every page of my link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) that you read, provided that you also read the linked references for any claim that you find suspicious. Even so, that has me reading about ten words to your one. If I'm going to look at your evidence, you can certainly look at mine. Fair?

Kind means a group of similar organisms that are all decsended from a single group of originally created animals and may refer to a species, a genus, or a family.As a general rule,members of the same kind are biologically capable of producing fertile offspring,although they may not interbreed at all in nature because of geographical or behavioral differences. Defined enough?That's almost exactly the same thing as a species and, as I say, speciation has been observed.