PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     dogs and horse evolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now this is interesting, this explenation isn't completely my own so first of all I'd give my thanks to RAZD on EVCforum.. I've borrowed it from him with much pleasure.

In many cases dogs are used to explain how micro evolution has evidence but macro doesn't.. I'm turning this evidence against the creationists by including horse evolution in all of this.

Dogs come in a large variety of breeds, from the smallest of dogs: Brandy and Booboo
to the largest of dogs: Hercules, Zorba and Gibson.

These according to creationists, are all part of micro evolution, they are stills dogs and I agree, they are definitely still dogs.
Now scientists understand that the destinction of macro and micro evolution is bullshit and I'm going to play a game with anyone who wants to participate.

I'm going to bring in individual steps of horse evolution, and compare those steps to the differences between the largest and smallest dogs in the world.

And then you (creationist or evolutionist) should tell me if the difference in a known step of horse evolution is greater then the difference between the largest and smallest dog breeds.

I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.

Refence images, these are the images which you will compare with.. The first is the skeleton from a chihuahua (an average one, I'm sure you can imagine how much smaller the smallest is)  and a great dane (same averageness.)


SECURITY ALERT: nullSECURITY ALERT: null



Before I start putting down a lot of images, I'm going to start out with one, Hyracotherium to miohippus.

First Hyracotherium:


And then the miohippus:


So tell me everyone, is the difference between hyracotherium and miohippus larger or smaller then the difference between the smallest and largest dog breed ?



To pre-answer some comments:

The validity of horse evolution is not a topic here, horse evolution is usually seen as macro evolution and is therefor deemed as "wrong" by creationists.

But dog evolution is seen as micro evolution.. So if the micro evolution of dogs is larger then the macro evolution to todays horse, then you realize that something is wrong in that argument.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 10:09 AM on January 22, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice idea for showing how macro and micro evolution are the same thing.

Does Hyracotherium walk on its hind legs or is that just how the skelton has been possed?

(Edited by Aswissrole 1/22/2009 at 5:57 PM).
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 5:47 PM on January 22, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

hyracotherium walks on four legs, so its just a picture quirk.. Finding skeletal pictures online is apparantly a lot harder then I first figured.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 3:11 PM on January 25, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you would be very hard pressed to find exctinct horse skeleton pictures online. Dinosuares are easy to find but horses, I'm supprised there are any at all.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 4:22 PM on January 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Zucadragon,

I think what you're showing us, in actual fact, is that there are a wide range of dogs on the planet all at one time and that they are nonetheless quite obviously dogs from the same original kind. The same with the horses in the so-called evolutionary line of horses -even today you get big horses and little horse, all sorts of horses -they are all related and there is no evidence of any kind that any one horse in a ramp series preceded or was derived from any of the others in the line up. To stick the hydracotherium at the beginning is the only problem since it is the only one that is clearly not a variety of horse.

Imagination is the author of horse evolution since things like the rib number increase and decrease willy nilly through the line-up which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Dog breeding is an example of intelligent input - a much wider range can be achieved as a result of choices made by the intelligent participator. This sort of range is probably less likely in a chance mutation scenario.
I'm afraid Razd's point is quite lost on me.  


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:41 AM on January 26, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the so-called evolutionary line of horses -even today you get big horses and little horse, all sorts of horses -they are all related and there is no evidence of any kind that any one horse in a ramp series preceded or was derived from any of the others in the line up.


Wait a second. I think you have got a little confused. Donkeys are not desended from horses or vice versa. Both of them originated from a comman ancestor, probably one of the horses posted by Zucadragon. The creatures in the species were then seperated, or chance did not get them to interact, and began along their own evolutionary course with little to no impact from the other species. Eventually the two species are different enougth to be clasified as different species. This is how species are able to diversify and several species are able to originate from a single one.

Dog breeding is an example of intelligent input - a much wider range can be achieved as a result of choices made by the intelligent participator.

What I believe Zucadragon is demonstrating is that a single creature can become many different breeds and eventually different species. You must also remember that horses have taken millions of years to evolve where as dog breeding only takes a few generations. If life were "breeded" by a divine spirit then why the hell did he take so long and leave so many mistakes?
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 12:24 PM on January 26, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There seem to be a few little problems with the horse theory. First, there is some discrepancy between  paleontologists as to what the horse “family tree” should look like and even which fossils should be classified as which species.
For example, in this family tree by Kathleen Hunt, the Pliohippus and the pseudhipparian occurs around 15My, the Neohipparion and Cormohipparion occurs around 10 My. But in the Ash hollow formation in Ashall, Nabraska, all four species plus one not listed in her tree are found in the same jumble of bones. That represents 3 three toed and 2 one toed species living together at the same time. Curiously, the first Hyracotherium was found in England and all of the rest up to Equus are found in North America. Supposedly then the Equus branch migrated throughout the world and died out in the Americas.

Old & New World Equus
               \  |  /
                \ | /
4My   Hippidion  Equus                                           Stylohipparion
        |        |                   Neohipparion   Hipparion   Cormohipparion
        |        |    Astrohippus         |           |             |
        |        |    Pliohippus          ---
12My     Dinohippus    Calippus                     \  |  /
            |          |         Pseudhipparion     \ | /
            |          |              |               |
            ---     Sinohippus
15My                  \  |  /                                 |
                      \ | /                     Megahippus   |
17My                Merychippus                      |        |
                        |           Anchitherium    Hypohippus
                        |                 |           |
23My                Parahippus             Anchitherium             Archeohippus
                        |                       |                       |
                 (Kalobatippus?)---
25My                              \  |  /
                                  \ | /
                                    |
35My                                 |
                               Miohippus  Mesohippus
                                     |        |
40My                                  Mesohippus
                                         |
                                         |
                                         |
45My                      Paleotherium    |
                             |          Epihippus
                             |              |
                      Propalaeotherium      |       Haplohippus
                             |              |       |
50My         Pachynolophus    |              Orohippus
                  |          |                 |
                  |          |                 |
                  ---
                                   \  |  /
                                    \ | /
55My                             Hyracotherium

As you can see by this timeline, there are three other varieties between Hyracotherium and Miohippus. But in the pictures you have shown there is very little obvious difference. Some paleontologists don’t think Hyracotherium should even be in the line up. And if they do, how do we know given the limited numbers of available fossils that these are not simply two varieties of a single species? Than you move up to the Nebraska formation. Three toes and two toes given different classifications but living together in the same place at the same time. Why? Why not variations within a species? Than the one toed Equus Simplicidens found in Montana , Wyoming and elsewhere. Said to be much like Greys Zebra. Why not a variation within a species? And how long has modern horse been “tinkered with” by people? Thousands of years of selective breeding have resulted in horses that may be very unlike their undomesticated predecessors but are nevertheless variations within a species.
And of course there is the whole dating process to begin with. Using "index fossils" to date rocks than assigning a date to a new fossil that becomes an "index fossil" for that rock assumes that the index fossil was right in the first place. And that was determined by the rock it was found in.

Nice try but not empirical evidence.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 4:27 PM on January 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yup, it all boils back to the same initial problem we have and that is whether it is even possible genetically for a horse to give rise to anything but a variety of horse or to have derived from anything but a type of horse.
It's all in the genetics and what mutations are actually capable of.

We have no problem with variations within a kind -plenty of proof of that -it's those pesky big jumps that one needs to have lots of faith in order to accept. Remember no bone has a tag with it's date on and age is not something that can be measured directly. Assumptions are everything when it comes to dating. Philisophical acceptance of 'evolution' is vital for connecting hydracotherium to the rest of the 'horse line'.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:08 AM on January 27, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx -
Do you really expect scientists to know exactly how horses evolved? The creates are exctinct and we probably don't have fossils for most of them. Research into this has not been going on for very long and it could be a very long time before a complete family tree of horses, or indeed any species, is created.

Remember no bone has a tag with it's date

Ah - well it kind of does. Patientologies can carbon date bones and other material to get an aproximate age. It won't tell you the year it died but it will give you an idea. I am not sure on the fine details of carbon dating and it might  be something worth reasurching.

those pesky big jumps

Not every species fossil has been found, this is close to impossible as I bet many don't exist, so there will always be "missing links". However, as we find more fossils we can piece together a more complete history of life on Earth. You must rember that the comman ancestors of animals alive today are now extinct.

I read an intresting article in New Scientists about how evolution is not nessacarily a tree but more of a web as different species may interbreed. I though this was a little obvius but it may be the knowleage you lack in understanding evolution
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 12:01 PM on January 27, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

tssk tssk, you two (timbrx and lester) are both ignoring my point actually.

Instead of adressing my point you go about explaining why you "think" that the layout of horse evolution and the position of the fossils, is not correct.

The fact is, your opinion doesn't change that fact that the majority of paleontologists accept horse evolution from hyracotherium to modern day horse.

But again, you're trying to undermine the argument that could just as well be used on any dinosaur.



The point is just a simple exercise to show that macro and micro evolution are terms that are rediculous. That the difference between those two are nonexistant. (apart from the amount of time used)


You can keep attacking horse fossils if you want (despite the fact that its accepted in the field of paleontology). But it doesn't destroy the point I make, because apart from horse evolution, there's plenty of species, old and young that have time lines with fossils that differ less then the difference between the smallest and largest dog.



 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 2:47 PM on January 27, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are correct, Zucadragon. I missed your point entirely. I thought you were offering evidence in support of evolution. By evolution I mean the "big picture" whereby every species shares a common ancestor if you look back in time far enough. As to the validity of the terms I can only say that they are usefull when defining the topic of discussion. By definition evolution means progression. If micro and macro can be used to describe the level of progression what is so ridiculous? As to where the line is drawn and by what standard is used to judge classification I don't know. But common sense can be used to judge whether a type of rat will eventually become a type of bat, or whether a bat evolved from a rat (metaphoric example only) as there are many more complex differances than wings.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:39 PM on January 27, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Micro and macro evolution are the same thing, just percieved differently.

common sense can be used to judge

Comman sence is not how science works. Science works through experimentation and evidence.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 4:32 PM on January 27, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is not science. It is a worldview / religion.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:36 PM on January 27, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 5:36 PM on January 27, 2009 :
Evolution is not science. It is a worldview / religion.



Dude, we've already gone over this in the SciAm thread. I specifically explained to you how science works as a methodology and precisely how evolution fits into that methodology. Your blanket statement that "evolution is a worldview and not science" isn't very compelling when you don't address the points others have made about the very same subject.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:02 PM on January 27, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How about some quotes from leading proponants of evolution on the subject, dude?

From: Henry Morris Ph.D.

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as
Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England,
William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are
dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist
Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution
is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to
Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was
true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
1
Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The
evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of
the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists
depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing
a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical
speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been
remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.
2
They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of
it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its
constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no
matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
3
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since
evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts
of just-so stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them
true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist,
says:
We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable
theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about.
Gee is
adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the
dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs
went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our
imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.4
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment
of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally
place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are
primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence
that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that
supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to
the contrary.
5
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can
testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the
pseudo-scientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at
Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people.
One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the
religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.
6


1. Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May
13, 2000), p. B-3.
2. Rifkin, Jeremy, “Reinventing Nature,” The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April
1998), p. 24.
3. Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In
New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
4. Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press,
1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
5. Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June
2000), p. 54.
6. Provine, Will, “No Free Will,” in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret
W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.


(Edited by timbrx 1/28/2009 at 08:47 AM).

(Edited by timbrx 1/28/2009 at 08:48 AM).
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:16 PM on January 27, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How about some quotes from leading proponants of evolution on the subject, dude?

From: Henry Morris Ph.D.


You haven't given us quotes. You've given us a poorly constructed essay by one of the most dishonest and discredited figures of the creationism movement. It doesn't work to say "Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!" and slap the title of one of their works down as proof. Where are the actual quotes that supposedly confess the religion of evolutionism?

Another problem with the essay you've cited is that it doesn't defeat the points I raised when I specifically explained to you how evolution works as scientific theory. When I gave you 16 deducible predictions of evolution, your only criticism was that the predictions assumed evolution to be true, at which point I explained to you that that's how scientific predictions are supposed to work. You still haven't written a response to that. Instead, you're citing the empty, unsupported words of a biased person whose expertise is in the bible and not biology.

Another of the points I raised was that to consider a scientific theory a religion, you'd have to define "religion" in such a way that the definition is more or less meaningless. Religion in a faith-based sense (the type of religion we equate with Christianity) is not simply an adherence to a particular idea -- it's adherence without evidence to support it, perhaps an adherence so strong that the proponent ignores contradictory evidence. The way you're trying to define evolution as a religion should also make mathematics, calculus, gravity, electromagnetism, cell theory, and germ theory religions.

Perhaps you mean to say that evolution is a religion because many people who accept the theory of evolution advocate it with zeal? Well, that's fine, but then all of a sudden you must also define these activities as religion, too: stamp collecting, eating food, studying, loving someone, sleeping, etc.

You might be on stronger ground with the definition of religion as merely a "worldview," but then you run into the problem that evolution isn't actually a worldview. Evolution is simply a scientific description of nature. To say that evolution is a worldview (as Henry Morris does) simply because evolutionary principles have been extended to other parts of the universe, such as cosmology, doesn't hold water because cosmological evolution is also a scientific description of nature. You're trying to define a set of observations as a worldview, a worldview on par with Christianity, which is absolutely absurd. If evolution is a worldview, it's sure an ambiguous one, because it says nothing about how we ought to behave. It's a description of what is, not what should be, and that renders it incapable of commenting on morality, the supernatural, or for that matter, everything outside of biology.

There's also no social structure of this so-called religion of evolution -- no rituals, sacraments, authoritative literature or figures. It's an evidence-rooted understanding of how life changes over time, and that's it.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 01:25 AM on January 28, 2009 | IP
flippo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 5:36 PM on January 27, 2009 :
Evolution is not science. It is a worldview / religion.


Evolution is a scientific theory, tested over and over since Darwin and still standing (i.e. no evidence against it, and overwhelming amounts for it). The sheer fact that it's being tested every day means it's by DEFINITION a scientific theory.

If you want to compare science with religion, have at least faith in one aspect of science:  scientists would love nothing more than to provide evidence against a major standing theory.  The history of science is full of it (scientists trying to disprove one another theories), and it happens on a smaller scale all the time. That's how the scientific system works: testing over and over.  

Think about all the fame a scientist would get if he/she could definitively provide evidence against evolution.  I wonder why in over 150 years this hasn't happened yet...



 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 04:03 AM on January 28, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Ecoli,
You haven't given us quotes. You've given us a poorly constructed essay by one of the most dishonest and discredited figures of the creationism movement. It doesn't work to say "Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!" and slap the title of one of their works down as proof. Where are the actual quotes that supposedly confess the religion of evolutionism?


This field doesn't import italics. I added the bold type so you could distinguish the actual quote from the poorly constructed essay. Also if you will look at the footnotes you will see the books or articles where these "actual quotes" were origonally made.

As to the 16 points' I did address them. If you start with a preconcieved notion you fit a preconcieved hypothesis. It is unfortunate but human nature will ALWAYS intertwine itself into our knowledge base. If you don't believe this than read your own posts objectively. Over and over again you have asserted your own bias into your argument so that the evidence always points to what you want it to. So do I as I have already admitted several times.

There's also no social structure of this so-called religion of evolution -- no rituals, sacraments, authoritative literature or figures. It's an evidence-rooted understanding of how life changes over time, and that's it.


Unfortunately you are so swallowed up by this dogma that you can't objectively see the evidence that evolution is in fact a religion. It is a belief supported by faith all things come from natural processes. This is a very important doctrinal foundation for athiestic and humanistic belief - Since natural processes make us what we are than we can adopt our own individual code of ethics and it is ok. Now people can justify anything they do as being natural and if they die in the process annihilation takes care of any pesky remorse.

Fortunately we still have laws based on Judeo/Christian values or else the basest people would run amuck.

If evolution is a worldview, it's sure an ambiguous one, because it says nothing about how we ought to behave. It's a description of what is, not what should be, and that renders it incapable of commenting on morality, the supernatural, or for that matter, everything outside of biology.


Exactly. And that is why teaching evolution without even the suggestion of a creator is so very dangerous. If it is true than anything goes. The only "morality" is defined by society and enforced by law. Guess where this will enevitably lead? You guessed it. Total government. Just remember, Ecoli, the vast majority of people on this planet don't think beyond their own current perception.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:25 AM on January 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OK timbrx, let me ask you a question.

Suppose you're a biology teacher of a HS biology class.  You don't believe evolution to be true.  What alternate theory do you have to explain the evident change in life over time that the fossil record indicates?  How does your theory explain the relationships and diversity of life as we see it today?  And what, if any, predictions does it make for life in the future?

Mind you, this is a science class... not a religious studies class, or a philosophy class, or a class on ethics.  So you will need to present you theory with evidence to back it up.

Go ahead timbrx... give it your best shot.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:36 AM on January 28, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:39 PM on January 27, 2009 :
You are correct, Zucadragon. I missed your point entirely. I thought you were offering evidence in support of evolution. By evolution I mean the "big picture" whereby every species shares a common ancestor if you look back in time far enough. As to the validity of the terms I can only say that they are usefull when defining the topic of discussion. By definition evolution means progression. If micro and macro can be used to describe the level of progression what is so ridiculous? As to where the line is drawn and by what standard is used to judge classification I don't know. But common sense can be used to judge whether a type of rat will eventually become a type of bat, or whether a bat evolved from a rat (metaphoric example only) as there are many more complex differances than wings.


one, if the terms "macro" and "micro" overlap by a margin that differs per example, then its a useless terminology that offers nothing to any discussion about the subject.

Its like calling something "large".. But we all know that large in itself doesn't describe anything, it has to be in comparison to something.. But even that leaves room for error.

If micro and macro can overlap, that means that micro and macro are useless terms because they don't describe anything about evolution, paleontology, biology, anything really.
They don't describe a limit (where does micro stop or macro start) as is seen by the overlapping of their meaning.

So unless someone figures out a clear description of what the limits of both words are (which will never happen, terminology in biology in general is a little vague.. Even the term "life" isn't as easy as it sounds)

So to use them is basically not making an argument at all, because there is nothing but an opinion saying that someone thinks something is micro or macro and therefor can or cannot work.

The line of progression therefor can't be described by micro and macro evolution either because there is no clear definition of the terms. Just like large doesn't describe anything without a clear definition of how large.

Is that clear or am I typing too much ?

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 1:34 PM on January 28, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:16 AM on January 28, 2009 :
How about some quotes from leading proponants of evolution on the subject, dude?

From: Henry Morris Ph.D.

It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as
Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England,
William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are
dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist
Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution
is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to
Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was
true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
1
Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The
evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of
the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists
depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing
a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical
speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been
remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.
2
They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of
it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its
constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated
commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no
matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
3
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since
evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts
of just-so stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them
true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist,
says:
We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable
theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about.
Gee is
adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the
dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs
went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our
imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.4
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment
of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally
place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are
primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence
that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that
supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to
the contrary.
5
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can
testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the
pseudo-scientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at
Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people.
One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the
religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.
6


1. Ruse, Michael, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May
13, 2000), p. B-3.
2. Rifkin, Jeremy, “Reinventing Nature,” The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April
1998), p. 24.
3. Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In
New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
4. Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press,
1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
5. Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June
2000), p. 54.
6. Provine, Will, “No Free Will,” in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret
W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.


(Edited by timbrx 1/28/2009 at 08:47 AM).

(Edited by timbrx 1/28/2009 at 08:48 AM).



First of all, you do realize that quotes from people, scientist or not, don't actually change anything.. Right ?.
The scientific method isn't based on any opinion, but if is, something you seem to think, otherwise you wouldn't think quoting a few people makes a point.. Then let me link you to something called the steve project:

http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve

I'm sure you've heard of it, where creationists made a list of scientists who don't support evolution (though the statement is a bit strange).. In responce, is a list of scientists with the name steve (or something close to it) that do support evolution.
You'll realize that that list by itself is larger then the list of all scientists that reject it.

In that same breath, it easily turns down any "argument from authority" you are making with your post simply because a few people/scientists don't suddenly represent the majority.


Second, Henry morris is very notorious for his quote mining of evolutionist authors.. And in many of the quotes you will see the dots and in others not a full quotation is added.

He's notorious for twisting words by quote mining biologists.

I don't trust the quotes he uses because in this case they can easily be out of context or have parts missing that clarify the evolutionists position.

Now it doesn't matter if this "is" the case.. Because if it can be the case, then thats reason enough to doubt the quotes used in the article.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 2:26 PM on January 28, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As to the 16 points' I did address them. If you start with a preconcieved notion you fit a preconcieved hypothesis.


That's what you said, yes, but for the third time now, that doesn't defeat the notion that evolution is a testable, falsifiable science. The whole point of the 16 predictions is to test if the preconceived notion is true or false. Note their format:

"If evolution is true, then X should also be true."

That means that if X is false, then evolution is also false. And out of all 16 of these predictions, none of them have turned out to be false. That is very compelling evidence towards evolution. Meanwhile, the way you have painted these predictions is to make it look as though we freely assume evolution is true without actually testing any hypotheses and comparing them against evidence, but that's not how it works. The process of creating a hypothesis, making a prediction, and testing the prediction, is exactly how science is supposed to function. When you then make the blanket statement that "evolution isn't science," or that "evolution isn't testable," it's very clear that you simply aren't listening to what everyone else is telling you.

It is unfortunate but human nature will ALWAYS intertwine itself into our knowledge base. If you don't believe this than read your own posts objectively. Over and over again you have asserted your own bias into your argument so that the evidence always points to what you want it to. So do I as I have already admitted several times.


Of course human nature is always present. The whole purpose of science, however, is to ensure that bias doesn't affect anything. You see, bias can't rig a test based on evidence and observation. Bias can't make the fossil record show a progression from life as it was 2.5 billion years ago up until now. Bias can't make streptococcus evolve resistance to antibiotics. Bias can't cause grass to evolve tolerance to harmful pesticides. Bias cannot undo the scientific process when it is applied correctly, and that is precisely why we are able to know that evolution is objective truth.


Unfortunately you are so swallowed up by this dogma that you can't objectively see the evidence that evolution is in fact a religion.


You haven't given any evidence that evolution is a religion. You've simply made sweeping blanket statements and called it a day.

It is a belief supported by faith all things come from natural processes.


Several inaccuracies:

First of all, faith is a belief for which there is no evidence. By definition, naturalism cannot be faith, because belief that everything comes from natural processes is based on experience and observation. Literally every experience in my life has been caused by naturalistic processes, and here you are calling it a stretch to suppose that other experiences will also be caused by natural experiences. :|

Such an assumption is no more based on faith than the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Obviously we can't know with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we can be pretty damn sure that it will simply because it's risen every time up until now. We also can't be 100% certain that gravity will continue to work tomorrow, but we have more than enough evidence to assume correctly that it will. These kinds of assumptions are not faith-based because they have evidence -- evidence based on observation, experience, and experiment. In other words, the exact same kind of evidence that confirmed evolution.

The other problem with your statement is that evolution is not based on any kind of assumption that everything is caused by a natural process. Evolution is supported by experiments and observation -- it has nothing to do with whether super-naturalism or naturalism are the ultimate authorities in the universe. You can believe in God and accept evolution at the exact same time -- super-naturalism and evolution and therefore not mutually exclusive.

This is a very important doctrinal foundation for athiestic and humanistic belief - Since natural processes make us what we are than we can adopt our own individual code of ethics and it is ok.


Whether or not evolution can be used as evidence to support other naturalistic-based religions is entirely irrelevant when all we're talking about is whether evolution itself is true or false. Your original claim is that evolution is a religion, not that evolution is a supporting pillar of some other religion. If you're changing your position, I would of course agree with you. Humanism and atheism indeed do employ evolution as a counter to the idea that life requires a supernatural explanation.

Since natural processes make us what we are than we can adopt our own individual code of ethics and it is ok. Now people can justify anything they do as being natural and if they die in the process annihilation takes care of any pesky remorse.


This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not evolution is a religion or a scientific theory that is based in evidence, but I will say this in response: You have a very warped vision of your fellow man if you think the only thing holding anyone back from murdering, raping and pillaging one another is the belief that an intangible being living in the sky will punish them when they die. If this were an accurate depiction of human psychology, how could our justice system ever work? I don't know about you, timbrx, but the reason I don't rape women on the street isn't because I'm afraid someone will punish me later in life, but because I was simply taught as a child to value other people. When my parents taught me these values, God was never mentioned. It seems very curious to me that you think God is the only effective reason people never commit crime, because I don't believe in God, and yet (this may surprise you), I've never committed a crime!

Fortunately we still have laws based on Judeo/Christian values or else the basest people would run amuck.


You keep telling yourself that. The people who committed the atrocities during the Christian Crusades must have been atheists, right? Because belief in God is obviously what kept them from doing what they did. The same thing applies to all the good Christians sitting in our American prisons, right?

If evolution is a worldview, it's sure an ambiguous one, because it says nothing about how we ought to behave. It's a description of what is, not what should be, and that renders it incapable of commenting on morality, the supernatural, or for that matter, everything outside of biology.



Exactly. And that is why teaching evolution without even the suggestion of a creator is so very dangerous.


Um... Gravity can't comment on morality either, so is it equally as dangerous to teach gravity without the suggestion that a God makes matter move towards itself?

This is what you're forgetting: There is a time to teach morality, and there is a time to teach science. When you're sitting in a science classroom, you're not there to learn about morality; you're there to learn about science. It doesn't make sense to insert morality into everything. If you're worried society is going to fall apart, teach morality, but teach it in a class that is for morality. What exactly is the problem? Are you freaking out when God isn't inserted into a class on the culinary arts? I didn't think so. ;)

If it is true than anything goes. The only "morality" is defined by society and enforced by law.


Ah. So we finally arrive at what you really think about evolution. The truth is, you don't actually care about whether or not evolution is supported by evidence and useful in scientific research. You're concerned that regardless of its validity, it will lead to societal downfall.

No, timbrx. That is what is truly dangerous. You are actually advocating that we ignore scientific progress not because it might be false, but because you don't like where the implication of certain scientific ideas could lead us. With all due respect, that is absurdly dishonest, not to mention, incredibly harmful not only to scientific advancement but the medical benefits such advancement would provide.

Guess where this will enevitably lead? You guessed it. Total government. Just remember, Ecoli, the vast majority of people on this planet don't think beyond their own current perception.


Apparently you think that belief in God is enough to steer governments in the right direction. I'm not sure that such a position adequately explains how empires like Protestant Britain were able to brutally control various corners of the globe with cannons and muskets, or how religious organizations were able to commit genocide (ex. when the Order of Teutonic Knights slaughtered the pagan Lithuanians with the express blessings of the Catholic Church).

No. Religion is neither sufficient nor necessary to maintain order, liberty, or equality. There are many good people in this world who do not believe in God. There are also many bad people in this world who both believe and don't believe in God, and they're prevented from committing crimes by the exact same thing that prevents everyone else from committing crimes: The rest of society. People don't like it when others steal, hurt, and kill them, so they naturally ban together and form protective organizations within their society. You seem to think that it's a bad thing that human law is what governs human behavior, but I have to say that I'm quite content. No one's ever stolen anything from me or hurt my girlfriend, and that's because my taxes pay the salaries of many fine individuals out there who stop bad people from doing those things to me and the people I love.

It's quite simple. You can have God, but not everyone needs God, and it is without question inappropriate to insert God in a scientific practice -- especially so when there is no evidence to suggest that God belongs there.






(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/28/2009 at 4:16 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:03 PM on January 28, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zucadragon,
Sorry I let this thread get off topic. Yes, you are right. Since the line between micro and macro is opinion, it is not always usefull. But there must be some terminology that we can agree on that describes the differance between the concept of evolution from simple life forms into more complex life forms and the concept of variations within a particular life form. To lump these two different things into one generic term only confuses the issue.

Ecoli, I gotta hand it to you. You are one heck of a good debater. Are you an attorney?

I particularly like the way you go from point to point assuming that the previous point is resolved. Unfortunately it is not. Here are your 16 points.
Deduction 1: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the species that lived in the remote past must be different from the species alive today.

Deduction 2: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the older the sedimentary strata, the less the chance of finding fossils of contemporary species.

Deduction 3: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, then we would expect to find only the simplest organisms in the very oldest strata and the more complex ones in more recent strata.

Deductlon 4: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, it must be possible to demonstrate the slow change of one species into another.

Deduction 5: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, which assumes that all of today's species are the descendants of a few original forms, there should have been connecting forms between the major groups (phyla, classes, orders).

Deduction 6: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the age of the earth must be very great, possibly millions of years old.

Deduction 7: There must be variation among organisms if the hypothesis of evolution is true.

Deduction 8: Natural selection can be operative only if more offspring are born than survive.

Deduction 9: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, there must be differences between the offspring that survive and reproduce and those that do not.

Deduction 10: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, only those variations that are inherited will be important.

Deduction 11: If the members of a taxonomic unit, such as the phylum chordata, share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their structure.

Deduction 12: If the members of a taxonomic unit share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their embryonic development.

Deduction 13: If evolutionary divergence is the basis of organic diversity, that fact should be reflected in the system of classification.

Deduction 14: If there is a unity of life based on descent from a common ancestor, this should be reflected in the structure of cells.

Deduction 15: If there is a unity of life based on evolution, that fact should be reflected in the molecular processes of organisms.

"Deduction 16: If the idea (hypothesis) of evolution is to be established as true, we must be able to obtain information on organisms that lived in the past."


The problem I have here is that you imply that since none of these are proven false than they must be true. Now is the point where we must differentiate between observable fact and conjecture.
Observable fact: variations within a species.
Conjecture: life forms "evolving" from simple to more complex of life forms.

Please help us to come to an understanding of terminology. I agree with ZucaD that micro and macro are too vague.



 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:55 PM on January 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 4:55 PM on January 28, 2009 :
The problem I have here is that you imply that since none of these are proven false than they must be true. Now is the point where we must differentiate between observable fact and conjecture.

Are you able to offer observations that would demonstrate that any of the deductions are invalid?  





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:41 PM on January 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Deduction 1: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the species that lived in the remote past must be different from the species alive today.


If creation is true, some creatures have become extinct. Others have diversified within the kind.

Deduction 2: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the older the sedimentary strata, the less the chance of finding fossils of contemporary species.


Unless of course, as evolutionists are prone to stating (when this doesn't work out), they were so well adapted to their niche that they never had to change .Meanwhile elsewhere in the world microbes changed all the way to man - pretty all-inclusive this theory.

Deduction 3: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, then we would expect to find only the simplest organisms in the very oldest strata and the more complex ones in more recent strata.


Well there we are then, then it's not true. Practically all the phyla are found right near the bottom in the cambrian where the common ancestor should still be attempting to sprout an ancestral leg or liver - but no, a vast array of complex invertebrates instead, with no sign of where they came from.

Deductlon 4: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, it must be possible to demonstrate the slow change of one species into another.


No sorry can't do that either -only a handful of questionable, possible, nobody agrees type 'transitionals'. The billions that should be there (and clearly so) are missing.

Deduction 5: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, which assumes that all of today's species are the descendants of a few original forms, there should have been connecting forms between the major groups (phyla, classes, orders).


Ditto above

Deduction 6: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the age of the earth must be very great, possibly millions of years old.


Only radiometric dating has been remotely obliging and the only reason we use it is because we believe in evolution so we need billions of years.Every dating technique (and there really are quite a few) that indicate that things are very much younger are turfed in preference of the one that just has to be right.If radiometric dating can't date known ages properly, why trust it with unknowns?

Deduction 7: There must be variation among organisms if the hypothesis of evolution is true.


Also if creation is true.

Deduction 9: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, there must be differences between the offspring that survive and reproduce and those that do not.


Nobody has a problem with natural selection, it works -the only problem is, does it add or take away information -that will tell you in which general direction the train is going.

Deduction 11: If the members of a taxonomic unit, such as the phylum chordata, share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their structure.


Also if they share a common creator and a common genetic code.

Deduction 14: If there is a unity of life based on descent from a common ancestor, this should be reflected in the structure of cells.


That should be the case with a common creator -why are the cells totally complicated in bacteria and totally complicated in multicellular organisms -why are they never simple? Why does the genetic code seem to have been present way back in history -it is pretty complicated -one would expect it to evolve? How do the first organism reproduce without it? How did natural selection even get off the ground before that ?

Well that's all I've got time for now,
Gotto run!!


















-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:52 AM on January 29, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem I have here is that you imply that since none of these are proven false than they must be true. Now is the point where we must differentiate between observable fact and conjecture.


Not only have none of these predictions shown evolution to be false, but many of them have been confirmed, timbrx. For example:

Deduction 2: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the older the sedimentary strata, the less the chance of finding fossils of contemporary species.


We observe exactly that. Of course, that observation alone is obviously not enough to provide sufficient proof of evolution. For instance, variation of life could mean evolution, but then against it also mean a creator made a bunch of different forms of life. However, when combined, the fact that almost all of the 16 predictions have been confirmed and none of them falsified provides very compelling evidence for evolution. Some of the predictions may also lend their hand toward a creation hypothesis, but the problem is that the creation hypothesis doesn't specifically predict that any of these observations must be true; evolution, meanwhile, demands all of these observations.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:18 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


If creation is true, some creatures have become extinct. Others have diversified within the kind.

If creation is true, then all the creatures became extinct in a period of 4000 years.

though if creation is true, then all evidence would support this, but no creationist so far has ever supported any of these claims. Can you ?

Deduction 2: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the older the sedimentary strata, the less the chance of finding fossils of contemporary species.



Unless of course, as evolutionists are prone to stating (when this doesn't work out), they were so well adapted to their niche that they never had to change .Meanwhile elsewhere in the world microbes changed all the way to man - pretty all-inclusive this theory.


no, this is always true.. If it doesn't work out, you'll see that there are reasons why it doesn't.

Kindoff like all science. The hypothesis is created under certain conditions, if these conditions are not met, the situation changes and so does the result.
That doesn't automatically falsify the hypothesis though, it expands on it to explain why a different situation leads to a different result.

Can you give an example of a fossil found in an incorrect strata layer, with sources please.

Well there we are then, then it's not true. Practically all the phyla are found right near the bottom in the cambrian where the common ancestor should still be attempting to sprout an ancestral leg or liver - but no, a vast array of complex invertebrates instead, with no sign of where they came from.


First up, what you find complex has no bearing on the actual complexity of an organism. Complexity, like macro and micro has no clear definition and seems to sprout only from ones opinion and is therefor not a correct way to observe and study a speciment.

Once more though, examples speak more words then an opinion, please give an example of a more "complex" organism deeper in the strata.

No sorry can't do that either -only a handful of questionable, possible, nobody agrees type 'transitionals'. The billions that should be there (and clearly so) are missing.


Another opinion, just because "you" find them questionable, doesn't actually make them questionable at all.. Are you a paleontologists by any chance, have you studied fossils most of your life.

Paleontologists have, and since the majority agrees on the transitional state of most fossils. You're really not making a point apart from "I just disagree".

Hold that thought, because the fact that you look for specific transitionals also means you don't know what a transitional fossil is. Which makes me think you don't understand the basics of evolution at all.

A transitional fossil is technically every fossil apart from the species that went extinct and didn't manage to reproduce. So the end point of a species.
Just think about it clearly.. Every species has ancestors but unless they go extinct, also has children, and childrens children, etc etc.

Thats the simple reality, if you're talking about transitional fossils, you're talking about paleontology and in paleontology, technically everything is a transitional from an evolutionary perspective.
And since you are talking about transitionals from an evolutionary perspective, you have to condone to the rules otherwise you're talking about a straw man, and we don't want that.

Once more, why not tell me who disagrees on these transitionals.. And please, biologists don't count, they aren't paleontologists. So if you're going to bring in quote, bring in quotes from people in the field.

Only radiometric dating has been remotely obliging and the only reason we use it is because we believe in evolution so we need billions of years.Every dating technique (and there really are quite a few) that indicate that things are very much younger are turfed in preference of the one that just has to be right.If radiometric dating can't date known ages properly, why trust it with unknowns?


This is ignorance on your part, you apparantly don't understand how radiometric dating works.. On top of that, there's many dating methods that support eachother. You conveniently forget things like ice core dating, dendrochronology, varve layer dating.

How much do you know about these I wonder, actually I ask, do you know anything about any of these dating methods ?

With dendrochronology alone, the date of the earth can be calculated back to around 12000 years.

But hey, don't take my word for it, if you want to learn, heres a nice link with plenty of examples, sources and explenations of various dating techniques:

http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm



Also if creation is true. (there must be variation in organisms)


This is a lie, any creation does not require any kind of variation at all. To say that it does, puts a limit on the creator because you're saying the creator can basically not create something without variation.

Which is silly, you'll agree with me right ?

Technically, if you accept a creator, you can't put any limits, so theres no logical reason to conclude any kind of variation is necessary.

In evolution, variation is not only required, without it, evolution would be refuted.

Nobody has a problem with natural selection, it works -the only problem is, does it add or take away information -that will tell you in which general direction the train is going.


Information is another vague creationist term.. Please explain to me what you mean with "information" because as far as I've seen, the usage depends on the situation. So every counter I make is nullified simply by the fact that the term in itself is fluid and has no single meaning.

Are you going to be the first to give it a proper meaning, or is yours also going to be vague ?

Besides, natural selection is only a responce to a changing environment, if a species is more suited in an environment then others, that species will thrive more.

Also if they share a common creator and a common genetic code.


Is there such a thing as an uncommon creator, other gods perhaps ?

Again, a "creator" has no requirements, no limits unless you say the creator "can't" do something.. Which is basically saying your creator is not allpowerfull and allknowing.

in any case, a creator has no limit thus you don't "expect" to find any of the sort, because in such a realm, anything is possible, and thus can't really be a definite sign of a creator..

You can't make predictions on creation, you can't falsify creation either because in creation.. Anything is game, anything is right.

Evolution can be falsified and does make predictions. Therefor evolution gives a more logical explenation and is a better choice... Its more "realistic" in this case.



Your last answer is the same thing.. You put limits on your creator by saying that his output (everything) works by rules.. But in reality, there is no basis on which you can conclude that, because the creator wouldn't need any rules, therefor making it impossible to test.

You cannot test the creator and in your idea, you can't test his creation either because anything you find is automatically true through the power of limitless creation.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 2:29 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 1:18 PM on January 29, 2009 :
The problem I have here is that you imply that since none of these are proven false than they must be true. Now is the point where we must differentiate between observable fact and conjecture.


Not only have none of these predictions shown evolution to be false, but many of them have been confirmed, timbrx. For example:

Deduction 2: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the older the sedimentary strata, the less the chance of finding fossils of contemporary species.


We observe exactly that. Of course, that observation alone is obviously not enough to provide sufficient proof of evolution. For instance, variation of life could mean evolution, but then against it also mean a creator made a bunch of different forms of life. However, when combined, the fact that almost all of the 16 predictions have been confirmed and none of them falsified provides very compelling evidence for evolution. Some of the predictions may also lend their hand toward a creation hypothesis, but the problem is that the creation hypothesis doesn't specifically predict that any of these observations must be true; evolution, meanwhile, demands all of these observations.



You put into words better what I was trying to say in some of my points.. The creator has no limit.. So everything is fair game.. In that case everything you find is per default, creation..
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 2:32 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Dog breeding is an example of intelligent input - a much wider range can be achieved as a result of choices made by the intelligent participator. This sort of range is probably less likely in a chance mutation scenario.
Hahahahahaha! Is there a "no_chance_mutation" scenario? xD

timbrx, you're right. There's a lot of argument regarding a lot of fossils.

The thing is that we all know it's a puzzle. It's creationists who claim that there's no puzzle.

If we disagree if a fossil is our ancestor or not, it's not nearly as important as when creationists disagree.

And they sure do.

timbrx
As to the 16 points' I did address them. If you start with a preconcieved notion you fit a preconcieved hypothesis.
Let's say i'm a bird watcher.

I saw 10 crows. They were all black.

I have a hypothesis: all crows are black.

I make a prediction: every crow i find from now on, will be black.

Do you see anything wrong with that process? I really don't...

Unfortunately you are so swallowed up by this dogma that you can't objectively see the evidence that evolution is in fact a religion. It is a belief supported by faith all things come from natural processes.
Evolution isn't even concerned with "all things".

It isn't concerned on what we should or shouldn't do, like a religion "should".

A scientific theory is based upon understanding.

Faith is based upon not-understanding.

Now people can justify anything they do as being natural and if they die in the process annihilation takes care of any pesky remorse.
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.  However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished (...) (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

 If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)


Get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage. So much for family values.

   Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."  (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

But if this charge is true
(that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.  You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.  (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death.  (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.  (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

   "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge!  Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD.  "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction".   (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out.  (Exodus 23:23 NAB)

   Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.  (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)


Fortunately we still have laws based on Judeo/Christian values or else the basest people would run amuck.
Yeah, lucky us...

And that is why teaching evolution without even the suggestion of a creator is so very dangerous. If it is true than anything goes. The only "morality" is defined by society and enforced by law. Guess where this will enevitably lead? You guessed it. Total government.


"Give the cesar what belongs to the cesar, and give God what belongs to God" (Matthew 22:21)

EntwickelnCollin
You have a very warped vision of your fellow man if you think the only thing holding anyone back from murdering, raping and pillaging one another is the belief that an intangible being living in the sky will punish them when they die.
Woah! Nice combo!

Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead  (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)


So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.




Can anyone doubt that these women were repeatedly raped? These men of God killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more.

Lester10
If creation is true, some creatures have become extinct. Others have diversified within the kind.
ONLY within the kind.

So prove it.


(Edited by wisp 2/3/2009 at 2:51 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:09 AM on February 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:11 AM on October 16, 2010 in the thread "Only if Evolution is true":
Fencer
However we do have a nice line of land mammals transitioning into modern day whales
As with horse evolution, there are loads of obvious problems with your nice line of transitionals. You can ignore the problems only if alternatives to your worldview don't suit you, or if its not PC to acknowledge them.
Sorry, Lester... What? Something about horse evolution?

Can you name those "
obvious problems"?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:49 PM on October 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Poor Timmy the YEC - he ran off for good, leaving only the credential embellishing plagiarist to prop up the YEC fantasy...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:31 PM on October 17, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.