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
     Alternate Theory Biology Class
       Answer to Orion's challange

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1/28/09 Orion says,

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.


Ok, Orion. I'll play.

Lets say I am HS biology teacher who doesn't believe in evolution.

I must be a private school teacher as a public school teacher would never be allowed to teach anything except evolution in the classroom. Since I work for a private school naturally students pay to attend. So I must be consistant with the desires of my employer as to how to best meet the needs of his clientele. Since I don't believe in evolution and desire to teach an alternate theory and want to get paid by my employer and he in turn by his client, than I must work in a religious private school.

So for this exercise to be even remotely valid you must grant that my students and their parents are primarily Christians.

Agreed, Orion?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:15 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do the parents of your school expect them to be prepared to attend a top level University?


-------
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: 11:21 PM on January 29, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Apoapsis at Thu January 29, 2009 - 11:21 PM
Do the parents of your school expect them to be prepared to attend a top level University?


Absolutely. And some plan on being doctors, undoubtebly. After all they are paying extra for it.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:00 AM on January 30, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

According to a recent poll, 12% of the 900 biology teachers who replied presents Creationism as an alternative to evolution.

One in eight U.S. high school teachers presents creationism as a valid alternative to evolution, says a poll published in the Public Library of Science Biology.

It doesn't specify whether they were from public or private high schools.  I assume some are from public schools.

So assume you're teaching in a public school.  What alternate theory would you teach?  And why should it be presented as a valid scientific theory?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:30 AM on January 30, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then they will obviously insist on mainstream biology.
No credit for Creationism


-------
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: 12:30 AM on January 30, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hang on, you did not awnser the question and have instead asked for the conditions to be changed. Your students already believe in creationisum and evoution. Presume that you are teaching in a public school with students that have no priore intrest or understanding about life. Forget the laws for the moment as this is a hypothetical situation.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 12:52 PM on January 30, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole,

Fair enough. I'm not trying to weasle out but rather to establish realistic boundaries. In a Christian private school I wouldn't have to worry about invoking God by name. Please be a little patient because I want to be as real as I can. My wife picked up a few advanced biology textbooks from the public school annex in our area and I want to address some of the more difficult aspects from a genuine perspective. So I need to do a little lesson planning.  

As to students with no prior interest, I plan on going one step further with advanced biology so we have students well indoctrinated into evolution. How's that?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 3:29 PM on January 30, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1/28/09 Orion says,

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.


Day one, the class is introduced to our standard biology book. We get to know each other a little and review some  things about science such as scientific method. I tell them I want them to be skeptical and to present alternate viewpoints whenever possible as this is #3 of the five points about hypothesis on pg. 16

I tell them it is ok to question everything, even their grade on a test, but to be prepared to defend their arguments in front of the class.

I tell them that this is a good biology book but it is not absolute. As knowledge increases some theories may be discarded in favor of better ones. Who knows, one of them may develop the perfect theory of everything.

As we progress through the book I would ask for alternative theories wherever there is something not supported by empirical evidence. I would constantly make suggestions about alternative viewpoints and talk about them. When the wiseguy in the back suggest aliens, we will explore the validity of that claim.

I would not treat evolution with overt hostility, but would give it the same respect as I would give any theory. I would present the evidence and offer a variety of explanations and allow them to reach conclusions on their own.

I would not grade on any theoretical material other than definitions.

Remember, Orion, the evidence is the same. The interpretation is different. Scientific method can be used to examine evidence on both sides with equal fervor.

The scientific method is the basic method, guide, and system by which we originate, refine, extend, and apply knowledge in all fields.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 8:53 PM on February 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As we progress through the book I would ask for alternative theories wherever there is something not supported by empirical evidence. I would constantly make suggestions about alternative viewpoints and talk about them. When the wiseguy in the back suggest aliens, we will explore the validity of that claim.
Ok, it doesn't sound bad...

I would not treat evolution with overt hostility, but would give it the same respect as I would give any theory. I would present the evidence and offer a variety of explanations and allow them to reach conclusions on their own.
A little tiresome, but ok...

Remember, Orion, the evidence is the same. The interpretation is different. Scientific method can be used to examine evidence on both sides with equal fervor.
Oh, you fucked up...

BOTH sides?

You can't help but show your real motivations.

What's so special about Evolution that makes you so eager to present alternative theories? Are you not closer to the Ark than to the UFO? You think that won't show? It shows now when you say "both".


(Edited by wisp 2/3/2009 at 10:34 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: 10:31 PM on February 3, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would give it the same respect as I would give any theory.

Um. You don't seem to understand what a theory is exactly. You must understand that gravity is a theory and so is the theory of general relativity. What you seem to be talking about is a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is an unproven idea that has not been tested fully or acsepted in the scientific comunity. A theory is a fully tested idea, with evidence, that is acsepted in the scientific community.

I would ask for alternative theories wherever there is something not supported by empirical evidence.

If there is something that has not been acspeted then it is usually obmited from GCSE / A level text books. If your chief argument is against evolution (whether this comes forward in the class or not) then are you going to present some of the evidence? Since you are talking about the scientific meathod and want your students to make their own desisions then I presume you are. Sure, explore other possibilities in your class but don't dwell too much on them otherwise you'll turn lose the factural knowledge that is imperative to science.

I would not grade on any theoretical material other than definitions.

WTF! Your only going to test them on definitions and practicle! What about calculations and the written exams?

 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 4:05 PM on February 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole
Sure, explore other possibilities in your class but don't dwell too much on them otherwise you'll turn lose the factural knowledge that is imperative to science.
Indeed. That's what i meant when i said it would be tiresome.

I mean, students would be wasting time.

But if that's what the students, the parents and the teachers want, ok. It's a Christian private school.

But if someone really tried to treat every "theory" with the same respect, there would be no progress in learning actual biology.



-------
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: 4:23 PM on February 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But if someone really tried to treat every "theory" with the same respect, there would be no progress in learning actual biology.


No aside from the theory and the historical side of things, you'd spend the rest of the lesson actually teaching evidential biology like 'how does the liver function' or 'how does photosynthesis work' -things that you are sure are true -that would be a good bio lesson and if you're a doctor in training(for example), you'd do far better knowing about those things than you would hearing just-so stories about how apes changed into us!No loss there.


-------
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: 12:13 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hum...

You're right.

Biology consists of much more than Evolution.

I got distracted by my huge crush on Evolution.

Evolution explains the way things came to be, but it's not so necessary when learning how things work.

They would still lose at least a couple of classes discussing, but it would advance anyway...

I'd like my children do learn Evolution, but then i could teach them myself.

Evolution has so many implications in so many fields that doing without it would be a huge set back, i think.



-------
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: 12:22 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution may not be nessacary in biology.
However, one could argue that EM waves are not nessacary in physics and organic chemistry is not nessacary in chemistry. You might still be learning the subject but not the whole subject.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 12:34 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't forget that evolution is crucial to understanding "how the liver functions".
Amphibian alcohol dehydrogenase, the major frog liver enzyme. Relationships to other forms and assessment of an early gene duplication separating vertebrate class I and class III alcohol dehydrogenases


-------
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: 12:45 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Indeed, Aswissrole. Not the whole subject. But every knowledge is interconnected with others. You never get to know any subject entirely.

Q: How many electricians does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. Most people can do it.

What you say is true, Apoapsis. But say, a doctor, doesn't need to "understand", but "know" how the liver functions.

I believe that, in normal circumstances, such an evolutionary knowledge shouldn't be crucial.

I certainly don't understand or even know how a liver functions (not that i say it's ok to ignore it).

Evolution can improve our understanding of many other sciences and disciplines. But it's seldom vital to be good at most of them.

I think.



-------
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: 1:17 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think evolution beyond the species level can actually be very useful as a mental exercise. Critical thinking is very important for advancement in a world that is so far beyond human understanding. Even in microsurgery "what if" leads to advancement in technique.

The problem lies in distinguishing the difference between a philosophical argument and a known. Holding fast to one world view is limiting possibility. The advantage most creationists have is that by and large we were educated with the same secular view of origin as evolutionists. Having once embraced that philosophy and than rejecting it in favor of a more reasonable one (to our minds) we (I) are now free to accept a bigger picture. "Goddidit" is not a shackle but rather a key. It frees us from a prison of limitations and embraces the infinite.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 5:02 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem lies in distinguishing the difference between a philosophical argument and a known.
Evolution isn't about philosophy.
Holding fast to one world view is limiting possibility.
I totally agree with that.


The advantage most creationists have is that by and large we were educated with the same secular view of origin as evolutionists. Having once embraced that philosophy and than rejecting it in favor of a more reasonable one (to our minds) we (I) are now free to accept a bigger picture.
Are you telling me that you're not aware of the fact that most creationists don't know anything about Evolution? (Let alone "embracing" it...)

The infinite can be embraced without the aid of any myths.

Using Mathematics you can learn that some infinites are bigger than others.

As an adolescent i enjoyed thinking about higher dimensions (4 spacial dimensions became easy). Last year i tried LSD and i saw 7.

But with this video i could understand 10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

A prison of limitations... That sounds like the dark ages, man. One of the reasons why i can be sure LSD is far less harmful than Christianism.

I love Jesus. Great guy. I kinda like christians, in spite of my rants. But i believe i hate christianism.

So harmful and unnecessary...

But some think it has done some good to the world, so i guess it's debatable.

Edit: A couple of nice Jehovah witnesses came a few times to my house.

They couldn't answer to my question about the "when" and "how" of the origin of parasites and carnivores.

They promised they'd come back with a good answer.

But they didn't come back at all. =(

I respect Jehovah witnesses in this regard: They believe that they have the salvation, and they come to offer it to you at your door.
And they don't do it for the money.


(Edited by wisp 2/9/2009 at 09:59 AM).


-------
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: 11:05 PM on February 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Wisp,
Evolution can improve our understanding of many other sciences and disciplines. But it's seldom vital to be good at most of them.

I think.


I think most 'evolution' is totally unnecessary on the practical level so a doctor need know nothing at all about the origin of anything to do his job but as far as 'variation' within the kind is concerned (like bacteria breed bacteria and can become resistant to certain antibiotics)
the doctor would need to know how this works in order to understand why he's needing to change the antibiotic if the first one doesn't work. This variation is however not evolution in the big sense though -it has limitations.

Hi Apoapsis
Don't forget that evolution is crucial to understanding "how the liver functions".
Amphibian alcohol dehydrogenase, the major frog liver enzyme. Relationships to other forms and assessment of an early gene duplication separating vertebrate class I and class III alcohol dehydrogenases


It may be an interesting possibility as far as origins go but how helpful is it? In practice what does the story do for anyone?

Aswissrole
However, one could argue that EM waves are not nessacary in physics and organic chemistry is not nessacary in chemistry. You might still be learning the subject but not the whole subject.


I would think electromagnetic waves are very necessary to understand in physics since you need to apply that knowledge but how would you apply the supposed 'knowledge' that a reptile turned into a bird? The scales and feathers derive from different genes even. I just can't think of any use for this in science. Please help me out here -I seem to be lacking imagination.

Wisp
As an adolescent i enjoyed thinking about higher dimensions

The spiritual dimension is separate from our dimensions we exist in. It is real, more real than our world really because they can see us but we cannot (mostly) see them. Seeing other dimensions using drugs is condemned in the Bible not because God is a killjoy trying to limit your fun but because he wants what is best for you like a parent that warns you not to go out into thorns with no shoes on. They do it to protect you and prevent pain because they love you. That's how God works but He  gives you the warnings as well as the choice to ignore Him.


-------
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: 04:32 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:32 AM on February 9, 2009 :

It may be an interesting possibility as far as origins go but how helpful is it? In practice what does the story do for anyone?


You obviously don't have friends who develop new cancer drugs.  Frontline research is how to interfere with the pathways that allow cancer sell growth.  In looking how to do that, they look at the same pathways in other species.  The evolutionary relationships between those species gives a framework within which the data can be understood.


Identification of CYP1A5 as the CYP1A Enzyme Mainly Responsible for Uroporphyrinogen Oxidation Induced by Ah Receptor Ligands in Chicken Liver and Kidney

I hope you never have to face cancer, but if you do, your chemotherapy was developed using evolution.


-------
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: 08:30 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Seems to me you overestimate the importance of the macro side of evolution. Nobody denies that allelic variation and genetics in general has importance -it's the macro supposed transitions that have no bearing on anything worth knowing.
Ability to compare different kinds of pathways is not necessarily related to common ancestry in evolution - it could be due to the plan of a common creator that common materials and pathways are used.


-------
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: 08:43 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
Aswissrole

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would personally consider biology and medician to be two different subjects with biology being more broad.

Timbrx
Saying that God can do anything may allow you to "explain" the world around you but it limits your scientific development. Very few technologies can be developed through religion. By using science, new inventions can be made and new discoveres that give us more freedom to do what we want and expand humanity.

Lester10
Have you herd about gene theropy? The basic idea of evolutuion can lend itself to help this field. An understanding of evolution also allows us to manage ecosystems and understand more about our planet, allowing us to create a sustainable society. The knowledge of evolution can also be used to help selectivly breed better livestock and crops.
It may be possible to create completly new creatures in the future.
In short, most things to do with genetics are helped by the understanding of evolution. Scientists can find out how certain genes may have evolved, how genetic diseases and genes are passed through a comunity through several generations and what genes acturly do.
 


Posts: 69 | Posted: 11:46 AM on February 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
I think most 'evolution' is totally unnecessary on the practical level
That statement seems to imply that, though unnecessary, Evolution is true.

I'd never say that "most" of Creationism is unnecessary. I'd say that there's no part of it of any value.

so a doctor need know nothing at all about the origin of anything to do his job
Oh... Then you meant not that 'evolution', but 'any theory concerning the origin of life' is unnecessary.

but as far as 'variation' within the kind is concerned (like bacteria breed bacteria and can become resistant to certain antibiotics)
Some bacteria have bred colonies.

Would you believe it? Want me to show you a picture?

the doctor would need to know how this works in order to understand why he's needing to change the antibiotic if the first one doesn't work.
Now that i think about it... A very good doctor with evolutionary knowledge could know what antibiotic to try in specific animals, according to it's relation with humans, before trying it in a human with a specific disease. Like Dr. House.

A patient with an infection plus a liver failure, for instance. Something difficult.

the doctor would need to know how this works in order to understand why he's needing to change the antibiotic if the first one doesn't work. This variation is however not evolution in the big sense though -it has limitations.
What limitations, exactly?

Can microbes learn to cooperate?
Can the specialize, once they're cooperating?
Can they develop light sensitivity?
Can they learn how to communicate chemically?
Can they form specialized colonies (ones becoming rigid thus providing support, others communicating when light is blocked, others reproducing, others moving the colony, etc) if given a lot of time?

What can they learn, and what can they not? Do you know? If not, who does?

You say that nylon digesting capabilities were God's foresight.

Where does that foresight stop? I mean, he's supposed to be quite smart, right?

The spiritual dimension is separate from our dimensions we exist in.
There's no such a thing as a "spiritual dimension". Different dimensions, perhaps. But what makes them "spiritual"?

It is real, more real than our world really because they can see us but we cannot (mostly) see them.
They? What?

Ok, this is getting creepy.

And i don't understand your logic: "Can't be seen. Therefore, more real."

Seeing other dimensions using drugs is condemned in the Bible
I believe i have read it complete. Show me the passage.

Even if it was condemned (and i know it's not), so is eating shellfish.

not because God is a killjoy trying to limit your fun but because he wants what is best for you
He should condemn saturated fats then.

like a parent that warns you not to go out into thorns with no shoes on.
Except that my loving parents didn't send me to everlasting fire if i pushed my limits.

That's how God works but He  gives you the warnings as well as the choice to ignore Him.
Where did God give me the warnings? The Bible?

The biblical god is Yahweh. His chosen people (the recipients of the biblical warnings and commands) were the Israelites.

Where and when exactly did Yahweh expand his choice?



-------
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: 7:03 PM on February 9, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:43 AM on February 9, 2009 :
Seems to me you overestimate the importance of the macro side of evolution. Nobody denies that allelic variation and genetics in general has importance -it's the macro supposed transitions that have no bearing on anything worth knowing.

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion, but I'll stick with the guys who actually do it every day.



-------
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: 7:33 PM on February 9, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx
Saying that God can do anything may allow you to "explain" the world around you but it limits your scientific development. Very few technologies can be developed through religion. By using science, new inventions can be made and new discoveres that give us more freedom to do what we want and expand humanity.


Perhaps knowing a little about history would help you to understand. Christians invented science (scientific method, taxonomy, laws of physics) Muslims invented the science of chemistry and algebra.
The list of scientists who are or were Christians and made important contributions is longer than we'll ever know. Here are a few.

John Philoponus late 6th Century Aristotle's early Christian critic
Hugh of St. Victor c. 1096-1141 theologian of science
Robert Grosseteste c. 1168-1253 reform-minded bishop-scientist
Roger Bacon c. 1220-1292 Doctor Mirabiles
Dietrich von Frieberg c. 1250-c. 1310 the priest who solved the mystery of the rainbow
Thomas Bradwardine c. 1290-1349 student of motion
Nicole Oresme c. 1320-1382 inventor of scientific graphic techniques
Nicholas of Cusa 1401-1464 grappler with infinity
Georgias Agricola 1495-1555 founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler 1571-1630 discoverer of the laws of planetary motion
Johannes Baptista van Helmont 1579-1644 founder of pneumatic chemistry and chemical physiology
Francesco Maria Grimaldi 1618-1663 discoverer of the diffraction of light Catholic
Blaise Pascal 1623-1662 mathematical prodigy and universal genius
Robert Boyle 1627-1691 founder of modern chemistry
John Ray 1627-1705 cataloger of British flora and fauna Calvinist (denomination?)
Isaac Barrow 1630-1677 Newton's teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1632-1723 discoverer of bacteria
Niels Seno 1638-1686 founder of geology
James Bradley 1693-1762 discoverer of the aberration of starlight
Ewald Georg von Kleist c. 1700-1748 inventor of the Leyden jar
Carolus Linnaeus 1707-1778 classifer of all living things
Leonhard Euler 1707-1783 the prolific mathematician
John Dalton 1766-1844 founder of modern atomic theory
Thomas Young 1773-1829 first to conduct a double-slit experiment with light
David Brewster 1781-1868 researcher of polarized light
William Buckland 1784-1856 geologist of the Noahic flood
Adem Sedgwick 1785-1873 geologist of the Cambrian
Augustin-Jean Fresnel 1788-1827 the physicist of light waves
Augustin Louis Cauchy 1789-1857 soulwinning mathematician
Michael Faraday 1791-1867 giant of electrical research
John Frederick William Herschel 1792-1871 cataloger of the Southern skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury 1806-1873 pathfinder of the seas
Philip Henry Gosse 1810-1888 popular naturalist
Asa Gray 1810-1888 influential botanist
James Dwight Dana 1813-1895 systematizer of minerology
George Boole 1815-1864 discoverer of pure mathematics
James Prescott Joule 1818-1889 originator of Joule's Law
John Couch Adams 1819-1892 codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes 1819-1903 theorist of fluorescence
Gregor Mendel 1822-1884 pioneer in genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin 1824-1907 physicist of thermodynammics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann 1829-1907 the non-Euclidean geometer behind relativity theory
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 father of modern physics
Edward William Morley 1838-1923 Michelson's partner in measuring the speed of light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem 1861-1923 the physicist who recovered the science of the Middle Ages
Georges Lemaitre 1894-1966 the prist who showed us the universe is expanding
George Washington Carver c. 1864-1943 pioneer in chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington 1882-1944 the astronomer who ruled stellar theory

Religion encourages understanding of God, the author of law and order in the universe.

Posted by wisp at Mon February 9, 2009 - 7:03 PM
Lester10
I think most 'evolution' is totally unnecessary on the practical level
That statement seems to imply that, though unnecessary, Evolution is true.

I'd never say that "most" of Creationism is unnecessary. I'd say that there's no part of it of any value.

Wispo, you are begging for some definitions here. You know what Lester is talking about

Want me to show you a picture?

No!

There's no such a thing as a "spiritual dimension". Different dimensions, perhaps. But what makes them "spiritual"?

Again, begging for a definition, wisp! You keep asking for it.

I believe i have read it complete. Show me the passage.


It's called sorcery (pharmakia).

Where and when exactly did Yahweh expand his choice?

Jesus (Yahshua) on the cross.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 9:58 PM on February 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Aswissrole
–I think what you must be referring to is micro-adaptation being useful in a lot of circumstances and that it is. It’s the macro imaginary extrapolation that helps nobody under any circumstances.

The knowledge of evolution can also be used to help selectivly breed better livestock and crops.


My point exactly –you are talking about selective breeding here not macro change. ‘Evolution’ must be carefully defined so that we all know which evolution we are referring to.

It may be possible to create completly new creatures in the future.


Only if there’s any truth in the macro evolution extrapolation story that we are supposed to believe against all the damning counter evidence. Frankly I think you’ll be waiting far longer than billions of years if you want to get completely new creatures.

Scientists can find out how certain genes may have evolved, how genetic diseases and genes are passed through a comunity through several generations and what genes acturly do.


Again, that pesky word ‘evolution’ –variations, mutations all useful but not anything to do with macro changes. That is the fantasy part of ‘evolution’ –yet to be convincingly proven.




-------
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: 01:36 AM on February 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hellooo Wisp,
That statement seems to imply that, though unnecessary, Evolution is true.


No, by no means am I implying that - macroevolution being not only unnecessary in science, but also untrue. Until perhaps sometime somebody can find some real evidence for it, it remains a fantasy. As for the microvariations –so called ‘microevolution’, better called variations or adaptations –now that is convincing –we can all agree that that is a real process.

Some bacteria have bred colonies.


Colonies of bacteria, precisely –I need to watch them become colonies of something else or to demonstrate that such change is vaguely feasible.

A very good doctor with evolutionary knowledge could know what antibiotic to try in specific animals, according to it's relation with humans, before trying it in a human with a specific disease.


‘Fraid not –there’s your imagination working overtime.

What limitations, exactly?


Entropy – increasing disorder –that’s all you get. No onward upward mobility –just downhill all the way. That’s all that’s ever been demonstrated. The rest is philosophy and wishful thinking. If the train were moving in the right direction, I’d be more inclined to believe the big ‘evolution’ story –but it’s not.

Can microbes learn to cooperate?
Can the specialize, once they're cooperating?
Can they develop light sensitivity?
Can they learn how to communicate chemically?
Can they form specialized colonies (ones becoming rigid thus providing support, others communicating when light is blocked, others reproducing, others moving the colony, etc) if given a lot of time?


Well they can adapt in lots of different ways for their survival but if they are bacteria, bacteria will they ever remain.

You say that nylon digesting capabilities were God's foresight.


Ability to adapt to different food sources but bacteria they remain and as far as we know, ever will remain. Remember the entropy.

There's no such a thing as a "spiritual dimension". Different dimensions, perhaps. But what makes them "spiritual"?

That’s what we call the dimension we can’t see but know is there. We can sense it to varying degrees. It is just a different dimension as you say but we have a name for it.
And i don't understand your logic: "Can't be seen. Therefore, more real."

Wisp I love your sense of humour; sorry to creep you out there but what I mean is that the other dimension exists and so do our dimensions. We can’t see that dimension so a part of reality is outside of what we generally are aware of. The spiritual beings in the spiritual dimension however can see us clearly so where they are is more real than where we are because our God created senses are limited.
Except that my loving parents didn't send me to everlasting fire if i pushed my limits.

Well this everloving parent has told us to come in out of the electric storm in case we get fried, but it is our choice whether we listen –He is not going to take that freedom of choice away. Everlasting fire is the default position and you and all of humanity are being called out of that.

I see Timbrx has explained the rest –Thanks Timbrx!




-------
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: 06:55 AM on February 10, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, timbrx. There were lots of Christian thinkers and scientists.

That list falls short. Like very short.

But Christianism per se didn't help them. Not the doctrine. It might have been a cultural thing rather than a doctrinal thing.
The smart and educated people of that time still didn't know better than to buy the prevalent religion of their time and place.

The primitive notion of a God creating the Universe can't give or help you get any understanding of it.

Lester10
Again, that pesky word ‘evolution’ –variations, mutations all useful but not anything to do with macro changes. That is the fantasy part of ‘evolution’ –yet to be convincingly proven.
When we ask for the difference between micro and macro, creationists say that it's species (a very bendable term in Evolution).

When we ask what a species is, they say that the real deal are 'kinds' (a very exact tag, in principle, but somehow can't be well defined and members of a 'kind' can't be pinpointed).

Lester10:
You're right about the implications of your statement. The fact that you split Evolution in half (one lasting 6k, and the other 3.5 billion years) slipped my mind...

But we'd still like to know the limits you impose to your God's foresight (nylon digesting capabilities yes, multicellularity nono, but what's in the middle?).

timbrx
Wispo, you are begging for some definitions here. You know what Lester is talking about
I'm truly sorry. It really slipped my mind (you're talking about micro and macro, right?).

You can believe me. I know it's the Internet, but still, i never lie.


There's no such a thing as a "spiritual dimension". Different dimensions, perhaps. But what makes them "spiritual"?
Again, begging for a definition, wisp! You keep asking for it.
Hahahaha!

I've thought it over, and you're right. Before discussing if they're spiritual or not, we need a common ground.

And i believe that such a common ground is nonexistent. For to me the whole Universe is spirit. And if any part of it isn't, then "spirit" does not exist.

I don't buy the matter vs. spirit thing. It's deeply rooted in our minds, and hardwired into our brains (evolution made it that way, by giving us helpful differential analysis of animate and inanimate, and giving us the also helpful ability to imagine talkative beings to rehearse a chat, or hostile ones to anticipate our real enemy's moves -ability shown at a short age, expressed as imaginary friends-).

It's called sorcery (pharmakia).
Was that what Lester10 meant?

Lester10, was that what you really meant? Be honest.

So am i a sorcerer? Your Bible has gained one level of coolness.

On the other hand, i should be killed... Heh... Heheh... Heh...

And you should certainly not talk to me. Not only because i'm a powerful sorcerer (beware, i can see lots of dimensions!), but because of this:

2 John:

7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.

So much for christian hospitality. xD

Also because of this:

Romans 16:17 (King James Bible):

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

When i say i like christians it's because i know that they are not good christians.

I would despise a hypothetical good christian (not that i believe that any of those actually exist).

Those advices are an evolutionary trait. Those religions that instead of that said: "Learn from all peoples." died off.

But hey, don't listen to me! I have an evil heart, according to Hebrews 3:12.

On top of that according to Romans 8:33 christians can't be accused of anything. For "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" (Romans 8:34, King James Version).

Can i charge them at least with misquoting?


Where and when exactly did Yahweh expand his choice?
Jesus (Yahshua) on the cross.
 

  1. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).
  2. Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).
  3. Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (John 19:26-27).
  4. Eli Eli lama sabachthani? ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34).
  5. I thirst (John 19:28).
  6. It is finished (John 19:30).
  7. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46).


What? When?

Wait, i found it: Mathew 28-19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

I remember, nevertheless, that there was a passage in which Jesus told his disciples not to teach in certain lands... I think he didn't want his teachings to be taught in Asia. But i can't find it right now... It's annoying...


Some bacteria have bred colonies.
Colonies of bacteria, precisely
And that's what we are, precisely.

I need to watch them become colonies of something else or to demonstrate that such change is vaguely feasible.
We still don't know what "something else" is.

As for the microvariations –so called ‘microevolution’, better called variations or adaptations –now that is convincing –we can all agree that that is a real process.
Yes we can.

Every evolutive step is always a microvariation (in the genome, even if the change it produces is big). It would be very difficult for a big change in the genome  to come in handy.


What limitations, exactly?
Entropy – increasing disorder –that’s all you get. No onward upward mobility –just downhill all the way.
Silly and disproven.

Entropy can decrease locally. Lots of simple chemicals can absorb light and transform it in chemical energy. That's a local entropy reduction.
That’s all that’s ever been demonstrated. The rest is philosophy and wishful thinking.
Man, my demonstrations make no effect in you.

Nobody's demonstrations against your faith seem to do.

So why do you even ask?

And why do i even try...

Can microbes learn to cooperate?
Can the specialize, once they're cooperating?
Can they develop light sensitivity?
Can they learn how to communicate chemically?
Can they form specialized colonies (labor division)?
Well they can adapt in lots of different ways for their survival but if they are bacteria, bacteria will they ever remain.
Is that just a name?

You can call them "bacteria" no matter what they do. Even when they start making up religions and drop by your house inviting you to be born again.

There are two requirements for the evolution of multicellularity:
*the ability of cells to stick together,
*and the division of labor (with communication as a prerequisite).

Glaucocystis has four cells together in a single sheath. Look at this beauty:


Look carefully at the Anabaena filament.

Do you see the fat round cell in the middle of the filament? That's a heterocyst. It's a differentiated cell that has become specialized for nitrogen fixation. All the other cells are capable of photosynthesis but the heterocyst specializes in fixing nitrogen. This species is a bacterial example of a multicellular organism with just two types of cells.

According to Romina Iusem, a student from the University of Buenos Aires, such a design would make the most lovely bracelet.

The specialization of the heterocyst means that the two types of cells have to communicate. This communication takes place via small pores in the cell wall between the cells in the filament. Signaling involves transfer of small molecules such as ATP and glutamine between the various cells. What this means is that some cynaobacteria meet the two criteria laid out for the evolution of multicellularity.

There's no doubt about the fact that this version of a multicellular organism predates the evolution of metazoa by about 2-3 billion years.

The myxobacteria are dramatic example of multicellular bacteria.

Under certain conditions the single cells of myxobacteria come together to form fruiting bodies that consist of hundreds of cells. In the most extreme examples, some cells form the stalk, some cells form sprangia and others form spores. These are multicellular bacteria with specialized differentiated cells.



There are many other multicelluar bacteria but these are sufficient to illustrate the point. Cell differentiation and multicellularity are not inventions of animals. There weren't even invented by eukaryotes. Not even by God. Differentiation and multicellularity evolved in bacteria long before the true eukaryotes ever appeared on this planet.

(http://myxobacteria.ahc.umn.edu/ The Myxobacteria Web page)

You say that nylon digesting capabilities were God's foresight.
Ability to adapt to different food sources but bacteria they remain and as far as we know, ever will remain. Remember the entropy.
You forgot to answer the actual question:
Where does that foresight stop? I mean, he's supposed to be quite smart, right?
That was my question. What i mean by it is that God could have foreseen the mechanisms for multicellularity, in order for the development of praying adoring ass licking creatures to take place.

There's no such a thing as a "spiritual dimension". Different dimensions, perhaps. But what makes them "spiritual"?
That’s what we call the dimension we can’t see but know is there.
Oh, like Time?

We can’t see that dimension so a part of reality is outside of what we generally are aware of.
I agree that there's a lot we fail to see. And we don't because we didn't evolve to see them. Instead of that we evolved to have moral concepts.

We can only see that whose sight what has given us a better survival rate since the distant past.

The ability to see animal individuals as colonies wouldn't have provided any advantage at surviving and passing our genes.
The spiritual beings in the spiritual dimension however can see us clearly so where they are is more real than where we are because our God created senses are limited.
Should i ask for evidence?

Nah.

Except that my loving parents didn't send me to everlasting fire if i pushed my limits.
Well this everloving parent has told us to come in out of the electric storm in case we get fried,
The electric storm He Himself made, right?
but it is our choice whether we listen
So he does not have a minute plan, according to you? You make it sound like it's up to us. Doesn't that go against the "minute plan" hypothesis?
He is not going to take that freedom of choice away.
Nor will He give us enough data for an informed consent to go to Hell.

Perhaps he hates smart people like this humble poster. And sends contradictory words for the smart to notice and, once noticed, go to Hell.

Everlasting fire is the default position and you and all of humanity are being called out of that.
Why would a loving God make everlasting fire as a default? Does that sound like a good system?

Everlasting fire sure doesn't sound like a proper learning environment.


(Edited by wisp 2/20/2009 at 2:05 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: 8:06 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:55 AM on February 10, 2009 :

Entropy – increasing disorder –that’s all you get. No onward upward mobility –just downhill all the way. That’s all that’s ever been demonstrated. The rest is philosophy and wishful thinking. If the train were moving in the right direction, I’d be more inclined to believe the big ‘evolution’ story –but it’s not.


What university course would you take to learn to learn about entropy?




-------
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: 10:21 PM on February 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp
You're right about the implications of your statement. The fact that you split Evolution in half (one lasting 6k, and the other 3.5 billion years) slipped my mind...


Exactly what are you talking about?

Entropy can decrease locally. Lots of simple chemicals can absorb light and transform it in chemical energy. That's a local entropy reduction.


That's true -but overall entropy increases -we're heading for ultimate heat death.

Nor will He give us enough data for an informed consent to go to Hell.


There's more than enough proof of God's existance in the things that exist. You just prefer not to know -it is what we call 'wilfully ignorant'.
Believing that a big bang brought something out of nothing is far more of a faith step than the idea that a creator outside of time created whatever there is. You see nothing can never produce something and something can't produce itself and the cause must be greater than the effect so Christianity is actually an intelligent faith far superior to the big bang story and its follow up "From Molecules to Microbiologists" .

Why would a loving God make everlasting fire as a default? Does that sound like a good system?


Well he also left instructions  -even through all the translations you can easily get the picture. Especially you Wisp, it's not like you were deprived of the story. You run from it that's all. It's a common problem. I know I did for many years -I didn't even realize that I was running from the truth but it was convenient to just say 'makes no sense, not for me" -look at what you do believe 'by faith' and don't tell me it is more scientific than the Bible's story of creation by an intelligent agent - because it definately isn't.

Everlasting fire sure doesn't sound like a proper learning environment.


Well then don't run out of time -open your eyes and keep searching. Really investigate it instead of finding umpteen excuses to make sure you never do.



-------
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: 10:02 AM on February 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exactly what are you talking about?
Micro and macro.

You said "I think most 'evolution' is totally unnecessary on the practical level". If you say "most" it implies that some parts ARE necessary. And if they are necessary it's most likely that they are true.

And what would those parts be? Those about microevolution! And thus your statement is correct from your perspective.

I gave you a way out. You should take it.

That's true -but overall entropy increases -we're heading for ultimate heat death.
Yes.

But if "that's true" you should take your claim back. This one:
Entropy – increasing disorder –that’s all you get. No onward upward mobility
No, that's not all you get. You get increasing order in some parts of the whole. You get upward mobility in some parts of the whole.

That's what we, as dissipative systems, are all about. We and our crystal and potato chips brothers are whirlpools in the downward river of entropy.

There's more than enough proof of God's existance in the things that exist.
They could be a proof for a lot of gods.

You just prefer not to know -it is what we call 'wilfully ignorant'.
Know what? About a creator? I do know. It's a primitive notion. Shared by cavemen. You have to educate yourself to see beyond that.

Your "knowledge" is pretty sapless.

Believing that a big bang brought something out of nothing
Are you sure that's what i believe? Would you bet on that?

The thing with us, thinkers, is that nobody gave us a book containing all the answers, saying "You have to swallow the whole thing."

And if they happen to do it, that only makes it harder to swallow.

is far more of a faith step than the idea that a creator outside of time created whatever there is.
How would you measure "faith"?

Not that i believe you're terribly wrong about faith and the Big Bang. I just wonder how do you measure. By what standards.

To me they put quite a lot of understanding into the Big Bang Theory.

And more understanding means less faith.
(Being filled with faith equals being clueless)

You see nothing can never produce something
Some quotation marks and a comma are missing here. I'm a bit robotic. And "You see nothing can never" burned a couple of my circuits.

and something can't produce itself
I guess...

and the cause must be greater than the effect
Wait... What? Why?

You could start a landslide by clapping your hands.

so Christianity is actually an intelligent faith
I love a good oxymoron. Thank you. This one goes to my collection.
far superior to the big bang story
At easing ignorant minds, yes.
and its follow up "From Molecules to Microbiologists".
Was that supposed to sound crazy or just clueless?

If you're talking about matter, microbiologists are molecules.

If you're talking about life, it's a process. So you can't compare it to matter.

Except if you're into quantum physics. In that case, ok, matter is a process.

I must warn you that we have already been introduced to quantum creationism.


Why would a loving God make everlasting fire as a default? Does that sound like a good system?
Well he also left instructions
That doesn't really answer my question.

even through all the translations you can easily get the picture.
There are many translations of many sacred texts.

I've read some of them, as i've read yours. And i don't think yours is special.

Especially you Wisp, it's not like you were deprived of the story.
Certainly. But you make it sound as if by reading it i damned myself.


So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Hahaha! Why would God do that? Erasing their enemies would be simpler.

Every biblical passage about God's miracles reveal how He is not omnipotent.

If He did something to the Sun, as stated in the Bible... Did He make the Sun rotate around the Earth so it appeared to be still?

Blah. Talking about those silly stories isn't worth the effort.

The worst part is that the few cool things in the Bible are systematically ignored by christians.

You run from it that's all.
No more than i run from the Quran.

It's a common problem.
Only if you admit having a problem running from the Quran.

I know I did for many years
You're still running from the Quran.

I didn't even realize that I was running
You don't even realize that you are running from the Quran.

it was convenient to just say 'makes no sense,
It still is.

look at what you do believe 'by faith'
By faith... Let's see...

By faith i believe in my own existence.
By faith i believe that i can gain knowledge.
By faith i believe that i can move my fingers.
By faith i believe that the laws of physics will remain the same in the next few seconds.

I am a man of faith.

and don't tell me it is more scientific than the Bible's story of creation by an intelligent agent
If you mean Evolution, i don't believe it by faith. I understand it. Since i was a kid.
I heard the basics and i started thinking by myself. You should try it!

because it definately isn't.
Well, if it's definate, then i must be wrong...

You should have started by saying that the Bible was definately true. We could have avoided all of this.



-------
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: 4:36 PM on February 13, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You just prefer not to know -it is what we call 'wilfully ignorant'.

Know what? About a creator? I do know. It's a primitive notion. Shared by cavemen. You have to educate yourself to see beyond that.


Even the well educated can be willfully ignorant as wisp demonstrates.


And more understanding means less faith.
(Being filled with faith equals being clueless)


Not true. Faith doesn't require lack of evidence. Faith is resting on something even if you don't have full understanding. I have faith in airliners even though it would seem impossible that 100's of tons of metal can fly. But I have evidence. I've seen them fly even though I don't fully understand why. And even if I understood the physics completely I would still have faith that it could fly.

Wait... What? Why?

You could start a landslide by clapping your hands.


But the landslide is caused by the release of potential energy stored in the rock. The clap may have triggered the release of the energy but the clap didn't cause the energy to be there in the first place.

and its follow up "From Molecules to Microbiologists".

Was that supposed to sound crazy or just clueless?


It does sound crazy that people would believe man could evolve from simple single celled organisms.

Every biblical passage about God's miracles reveal how He is not omnipotent.

What? Doing miracles reveals lack of omnipotence? Unusual logic here.

If He did something to the Sun, as stated in the Bible... Did He make the Sun rotate around the Earth so it appeared to be still?

Blah. Talking about those silly stories isn't worth the effort.


You're right. It is much easier to be willingly ignorant.

If you mean Evolution, i don't believe it by faith. I understand it.


So to you, believing in something you can't prove is called "understanding"? Or is that only if the supernatural is not involved?

You should have started by saying that the Bible was definately true. We could have avoided all of this.


And deny you the prospect of rattling a creationists cage? I think not.

(btw, wisp- definately is spelled "definitely";)
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:18 PM on February 13, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It does sound crazy that people would believe man could evolve from simple single celled organisms.

Why is it crazy?  Creationists always claim this but can't backup their claim.  Why is it crazy to think single celled orgainisms can evolve into more complex orgainisms.  You 've already been shown how sindle cell orgainisms can become multi cell organisms, so what's the problem?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:34 PM on February 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon 38
Why is it crazy to think single celled orgainisms can evolve into more complex orgainisms.


Because such a thing has never been experimentally demonstrated. Even the potential ability has never been demonstrated -it has merely been assumed by those who believe that it happened. What we actually see is that you get variations within a kind, not variations leading to a different kind of creature.
The 'fossil record' does not demonstrate change from one kind to another; it is once again assumed to have happened and the vast problems with the 'fossil record' are swept under the carpet.

You 've already been shown how sindle cell orgainisms can become multi cell organisms


No we haven't. Perhaps there is a genetic programme that allows that to happen? How do you think a caterpillar turns into a butterfly? How did it work out how how to convert its biomass inside the cocoon? Maybe it has a genetic programme that causes that to happen? Sure makes more sense to me. Nothing can do what it is not programmed to do. All the coordinated activities are programmed to work together and all the correct proteins are programmed to be produced at just the right time in just the right quantities.
If it could do what it does without a programme, I would call that the greater miracle.
What we need to ask ourselves is not 'how did the caterpillar managed to adapt into it's amazing life cycle?' but rather 'who is the programmer of life?"


-------
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: 01:12 AM on February 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I think most 'evolution' is totally unnecessary on the practical level".


What I mean is that macro and micro are lumped together under the name 'evolution' as if the two are synonymous. All of the macro part is assumed while the micro part is experimentally demonstrated. The micro part is important. The macro part is imaginary extrapolation.

You get upward mobility in some parts of the whole.


Yes but only when biological machines or physical laws do the ordering.

That's what we, as dissipative systems, are all about.


So perhaps we are programmed to do this. Our biological machinary is programmed and without that there is no local upward mobility in any part.

They could be a proof for a lot of gods.


Well then, in your quest for truth, you need to look to the story that is least contradictory to science and reality and most verifiable historically. The Bible says time had a beginning and life has a creator who is himself eternal. No contradiction there. Unless you don't like the possibility, in which case you create your own miracles in big bangs producing matter out of nothing at all.

so Christianity is actually an intelligent faith

I love a good oxymoron.


It is only oxymoronic in your personal opinion.

There are many translations of many sacred texts.

I've read some of them, as i've read yours. And i don't think yours is special.


Well personally, I believe you are wrong and should read it again. Try the New Testament and read the book of John first. Ask the God that doesn't exist to help you to understand.

Know what? About a creator? I do know. It's a primitive notion. Shared by cavemen.


Cavemen exist even today. They live in caves. If you are talking about prehistoric cavemen, there is a good chance they never existed. I wouldn't count on it in any case. It is a story about prehistory after all, so it is an imaginary story not taken from personal records and accounts.
Men are full of imagination -especially when it suits them.

far superior to the big bang story

At easing ignorant minds, yes.


The 'Big Bang' requires miracles without a miracle maker. At least our miracles have a cause. So which is the more ignorant or imagination-filled story? How can you be sure it is not you and your evolutionist friends easing your minds with the Big Bang story?

If you're talking about matter, microbiologists are molecules.


Ah yes, but not the 'original' unicellular conglomerations of molecules. They are 'evolved.' It is a long and drawn out, extremely inventive story of progress against all odds....and all evidence.

I am a man of faith.


Correct, along with everybody else. The thing is - which faith is the more intelligent faith to have? Which bias is it better to be biased with?

If you mean Evolution, i don't believe it by faith. I understand it. Since i was a kid.
I heard the basics and i started thinking by myself. You should try it!


I also understood it since I heard the basics and was thinking by myself. Then later on, I heard the evidence against my faith (all that stuff they systematically keep out of schools and universities as part of the indoctrination process) and I decided to 'put away childish things' as it were and get with the real programme -the one I had chosen to reject when I 'intelligently' chose evolution.







 


-------
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: 02:12 AM on February 14, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Because such a thing has never been experimentally demonstrated. Even the potential ability has never been demonstrated -it has merely been assumed by those who believe that it happened.

No, we've seen natural mechanisms that turn single celled organisms into multicelled organisms.  So we know how single celled organisms turn into multicelled organisms.  I think Wisp showed a few examples in a previous thread but here is a little more information, from here:
Multicellular
"From our current perspective it appears that multicellular life evolved from single cells in two stages.  First, single cell organisms evolved the ability to form loose cooperative communities, called biofilms, that can perhaps be thought of as “training wheels” for multicellular life.  Perhaps the earliest colony bacteria were the cyanobacteria that evolved more than three billion years ago. Their fossil remains are visible today because these colonies secreted a thick gel as protection from solar radiation unattenuated by (then nonexistent) atmospheric ozone. This gel, in turn, trapped sand and debris from the surf which, together with lime secreted by the bacteria, formed the beautiful patterns of the Stromatolite fossil reefs visible in Australia (see image at left). These structures vary in size from twig-size to semi-truck size.
Biofilms remain common today.  Present-day examples of biofilms include slime mold, dental plaque, films on rocks in streams and many more.  They are complex ecologies of single-cell organisms that include algae, bacteria, protozoa, cyanobacteria, fungi, and viruses"

So we see that single celled organisms can form colonies just by congregating together, we see it in the fossil record and we see it today.  What would the next step be?  From here:
MulticellularII
"According to a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, these findings help confirm choanoflagellates' role as an evolutionary link between single-celled and multi-celled organisms. They also contend that these insights into the organism's genome may mean that the proteins used to help cells communicate may have other roles as well. The researchers are from the University of California, San Francisco and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany.

Choanoflagellates, or at least their ancestors, have long been suspected as being the bridge between microorganisms with only one cell and metazoan, or multi-cellular organisms. There are many clues that lead to this conclusion, including the fact that choanoflagellates are similar to the individual cells in ocean sponges and unlike most other flagellates, they use their flagellate, or tail, to push themselves through water, rather than being pulled by it."

So no, it's just not an assumption that single celled life evolved into multicelled life, it's a scientific theory complete with a great amount of evidence.  Why don't you explain this evidence to us using another scientific theory, oh that's right, there isn't any other scientific theory except for evolution.  And virtually all biologists accept the theory of evolution as fact.

The 'fossil record' does not demonstrate change from one kind to another; it is once again assumed to have happened and the vast problems with the 'fossil record' are swept under the carpet.

Of course it does, it most definitely shows organisms evolving into different orgainisms.  What the hell are you looking at???
From here:
Transitional
"Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear. The reptilian quadrate bone became the mammalian incus, while the articular bone became the malleus. The entire process had taken nearly the whole length of the Triassic period to complete, a time span of approximately 40 million years. Since the determining characteristic of a mammal in the fossil record is the structure of the jaw bone and joint, all of the therapsids up to the Morganucodonts are classified as reptiles, and all those after that are considered to be mammals. As Romer puts it, "We arbitrarily group the therapsids as reptiles (we have to draw a line somewhere) but were they alive, a typical therapsid probably would seem to us an odd cross between a lizard and a dog, a transitional type between the two great groups of backboned animals." (Romer, 1967, p. 227) "

The change from reptile to mammal is incredibly well supported in the fossil record, it clearly demonstrates change, no assumptions needed.  You are completely wrong on this point.

No we haven't.

Yes we have, we see how single celled critters could have come together to form colonies and how they evolved to communicate with each other exactly as cells in a multicelled organism do.  What haven't we seen?  What mechanisms can't be explained?  Do some real research for a change.

Perhaps there is a genetic programme that allows that to happen?

Yeah, it's called DNA and we can see how it evolved.

How do you think a caterpillar turns into a butterfly?

By naturally evovled mechanisms, how do you think it does????

How did it work out how how to convert its biomass inside the cocoon?

Natural selection and mutation, in other words, evolution.

Maybe it has a genetic programme that causes that to happen?

Yes, you can call DNA a program if you like, but it's not reall one and that doesn't mean it was intelligently designed, quite the opposite, DNA looks like it evovled, only a moron would have intentionally designed it that way!

Sure makes more sense to me.

What makes more sense?  What evidence do you have?  Do you have any real evidence?  You haven't presented ANY to us yet.

All the coordinated activities are programmed to work together and all the correct proteins are programmed to be produced at just the right time in just the right quantities.

Yes, all the ones that didn't work together and weren't produced at just the right time died, that's how natural selection and mutation, and evolution, work.

What we need to ask ourselves is not 'how did the caterpillar managed to adapt into it's amazing life cycle?' but rather 'who is the programmer of life?"

No, we can see how life adapts itself, it's called evolution and it's a fact.  There is no evidence for an intelligent programmer and a ton of evidence against an intelligent programmer.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:00 AM on February 14, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Choanoflagellates, or at least their ancestors, have long been suspected as being the bridge between microorganisms with only one cell and metazoan, or multi-cellular organisms.


And 'suspect' would be the correct word to use since there is no way of proving that any such evolution occurred -we need to remain suspicious. Isn't it obvious to you that if you presuppose the truth of evolution, you would need to suspect such things in order to maintain continuity? The stories sound good, no doubt, but are they true or are they just imaginative inventions based on a pre-existing philosophy?

And virtually all biologists accept the theory of evolution as fact.


Well it would be difficult not to, since that is all they are fed. It'd also be a tad difficult to pass your exams if you don't believe the party line - as many have found to their distress after the fact. Not only are there a fair number of biologists that do not believe it, there are also a lot that pretend to believe in order to stay employed. A little like communist Russia or the inquisition, wouldn't you think?

Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear.


And there again we have a story based on a belief that 'evolution' is in fact true. This has never been 'observed' or 'repeated' -you know, the real scientific method; it has been supposed and the story has been knitted together from that supposition.
If you take a good long look at the real fossil evidence, there are enormous gaps all over the place and very few disputable 'transitional' forms where there should be billions. If you find billions of fish and nothing to show how the fish ever became a fish, you need to be suspicious rather than just imagining that all the most necessary evidence failed to fossilize. How about the dinosaurs -more than enough fossils of them; but you tell me what led up to the dinosaurs -where are all their ancestors? How come unicellular organisms jumped clear over a vast gulley to become an amazing diversity of invertebrates with nothing showing how they diversified or how they are linked. It's a nice story but take a good look. I used to imagine there was a lot more to look at in the way of transitionals, and was pretty horrified at the reality.

The change from reptile to mammal is incredibly well supported in the fossil record


If you believe that it happened then it may seem that way but perhaps it is just more likely than the other absolutely unsupported jumps and that makes you feel more positive.

Yeah, it's called DNA and we can see how it evolved.


Oh yeah right down there at the beginning. Pretty complex start. Again you can't 'see' how it happened, you can only imagine based on your pre-existing belief system/ worldview/philosophy.

Yes, all the ones that didn't work together and weren't produced at just the right time died, that's how natural selection and mutation, and evolution, work.


Not quite -natural selection is a pretty conservative thing. It tries to maintain biological creatures within limits. If there is mutation and that mutation is incompatible with life because the programme is too corrupted, then they die. Natural selection only selects what already exists, it has no creative abilities.

How do you think a caterpillar turns into a butterfly?

By naturally evovled mechanisms, how do you think it does????


Such a lot of mutations -how do you think the butterfly ever emerged from the cocoon if all those changes didn't happen fortuitously the first time it got it into its head to hide itself away inside the cocoon. What if it is a programme much like a computer programme and that programme came into being by the creative power of an intelligent programmer?
Why would we refuse that as a possibility unless it is in order to satisfy our personal prejudices?

DNA looks like it evovled, only a moron would have intentionally designed it that way!


I don't think so -it would take a looot more than a moron to design life. All our best brains can't do it so why suppose a moron was responsible?







-------
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: 06:57 AM on February 14, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, we've seen natural mechanisms that turn single celled organisms into multicelled organisms.  So we know how single celled organisms turn into multicelled organisms.  I think Wisp showed a few examples in a previous thread but here is a little more information, from here:
Multicellular

demon38, did you even read this article? The only "evidence" was increasing complexity in (created) computers.

So we see that single celled organisms can form colonies just by congregating together, we see it in the fossil record and we see it today.  What would the next step be?  From here:
MulticellularII

I know you copy/pasted some of this one, but did you really "read" it? The premise  is that since the genes of this organism contain some of the same proteins that other organisms cells use to communicate than it is "evolving" the ability to have multi-cells. That assumes that the known use of these proteins is the only use of these proteins. As Lester so eloquently pointed out, it is based entirely on a presupposition.




Here is a picture of the connective protein in humans.

(Edited by timbrx 2/14/2009 at 10:05 AM).
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:00 AM on February 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I might point out that we ALL developed from a single cell - well, the combining of two gamete cells, and developed into a multicellular organism.  Every single human being has.  Every animal has, that I know of.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:39 PM on February 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:00 AM on February 14, 2009 :

I know you copy/pasted some of this one, but did you really "read" it? The premise  is that since the genes of this organism contain some of the same proteins that other organisms cells use to communicate than it is "evolving" the ability to have multi-cells. That assumes that the known use of these proteins is the only use of these proteins. As Lester so eloquently pointed out, it is based entirely on a presupposition.




Here is a picture of the connective protein in humans.


So how does this cast doubt on evolution?



(Edited by Apoapsis 2/15/2009 at 11:32 PM).


-------
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: 4:01 PM on February 14, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So how does this cast doubt on evolution?

Demon claims that this article demonstrates that     "we've seen natural mechanisms that turn single celled organisms into multicelled organisms.  So we know how single celled organisms turn into multicelled organisms."
Once again an evolutionist article examines some data and uses it to support a presupposition. Hardly objective "evidence".
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 9:55 PM on February 14, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And 'suspect' would be the correct word to use since there is no way of proving that any such evolution occurred -we need to remain suspicious.

Yes suspected, and now they've found even more evidence to confirm this theory.   This directly supports evolution, it shows HOW single celled organisms could have evolved into multicelled organisms.  It is a viable path from single cell to multicell.  Please show us why it could not work, if you can't your point is disproven.  

The stories sound good, no doubt, but are they true or are they just imaginative inventions based on a pre-existing
philosophy?


Since the "stories" are based on only the evidence, so they are as valid as real biologists can make them.  The creationist community has been unable to disprove any of the components of evolution.  And you are quite incorrect, evolutin isn't a philosophy, it's a scientific theory, that's one of your many problems.

Well it would be difficult not to, since that is all they are fed. It'd also be a tad difficult to pass your exams if you don't believe the party line - as many have found to their distress after the fact. Not only are there a fair number of biologists that do not believe it, there are also a lot that pretend to believe in order to stay employed. A little like communist Russia or the inquisition, wouldn't you think?

All incorrect, evolution has been observed, it is a fact both in the modern world and in the fossil record.  Any scientist is free to disprove evolution it's just that they can't do it, they've been trying for over 150 years and no one has done it, I wonder why?  As to passing your exams, well, the same can be said for anyone who believes in a flat earth or a geocentric solar system.  As to a fair number of biologists who don't believe in evolution, utter rubbish, over 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution.  Please show us the biologists who don't and why.  You make a lot of claims but come up short backing them up.

And there again we have a story based on a belief that 'evolution' is in fact true.

Evolution is not a belief, it's a well observed, fully supported fact.  

This has never been 'observed' or 'repeated' -you know, the real scientific method;

Yes it has, evolution has been observed and experimets have been repeated, extensively, so much so that evolution is a fact, you know, the real scientific method.  You are wrong here also.

If you take a good long look at the real fossil evidence, there are enormous gaps all over the place and very few disputable 'transitional' forms where there should be billions.

Well you've obviously never looked at the fossil record because there are thousands of undisputable transitional forms.  There should be billions, again, you don't understand how fossilization works.  Ask any paleontologists and they'll tell you most organisms do NOT frossilize when they die.  And how do you explain the "few undisputable " transitional forms that you admit exist?  

If you believe that it happened then it may seem that way but perhaps it is just more likely than the other absolutely unsupported jumps and that makes you feel more
positive.


So you didn't even bother to look at this example...
From here:
Therapsids
""The reptiles, as we have noted, have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw, and mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. On the other hand, the jaw joints in the reptile are formed from different bones than they are in the mammalian skull. Thus, it is apparent that, during the evolutionary transition from reptile to mammal, the jaw joints must have shifted from one bone to another, freeing up the rest of these bones to form the auditory ossicles in the mammalian middle ear. (In fact, in most modern reptiles, the jawbones in question actually function in transmitting sound waves to the inner ear, so the transformation postulated above is not a functional change, merely an improvement in a f[u]nction that these bones already had). As Arthur N. Strahler puts it, "A transitional form must have had two joints in operation simultaneously (as in the modern rattlesnake), and this phase was followed by a fusion of the lower joint." (Strahler 1987, p. 414) ... Not only is this explanation not 'merely wishful conjecture', but it can be clearly seen in a remarkable series of fossils from the Triassic therapsids. The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian."    
Clearly, this demonstrates evolution.  If you claim it doesn't please explain why Probainognathus had 2 jaw joints, one like a reptile and one like a mammal.

Oh yeah right down there at the beginning. Pretty complex start. Again you can't 'see' how it happened, you can only imagine based on your pre-existing belief system/ worldview/philosophy.

You're the only one claiming it was a complex start, the experts on the other hand say DNA clearly evolved.  And no, we can't "see" how it happened but we can study the evidence and create theories.  Presently the theories are much more than imagination and aren't based on any pre existing belief system or world view, they're based on science.

Not quite -natural selection is a pretty conservative thing. It tries to maintain biological creatures within limits. If there is mutation and that mutation is incompatible with life because the programme is too corrupted, then they die. Natural selection only selects what already exists, it has no creative abilities.

But if the mutation isn't incompatable with life, if it provides a benefit to organism, it is selected for!  Yes, natural selection isn't creative by itself, but it unintelligently chooses traits generated by mutations that are more beneficial to a population of organisms.  So if an organism had parts that didn't work together as you claim, they would die while the ones with parts that worked together would not.  Since we see that structures in living organisms don't develope independently they develope in coordination with the overall body plan of the organism, your claim isn't really a problem.

Such a lot of mutations -how do you think the butterfly ever emerged from the cocoon if all those changes didn't happen fortuitously the first time it got it into its head to hide itself away inside the cocoon.

What?  Do you actually believe that butterfly DECIDES to transform????  No, no , no, it's an evolved instinct!  And just because you don't understand how a caterpillar changes into a butterfly and just because you can't be bothered to research it, doesn't mean Goddidit.

I don't think so -it would take a looot more than a moron to design life. All our best brains can't do it so why suppose a moron was responsible?

The hallmark of intelligent design is simplicity.  DNA is incredibly complex, it has many broken and usless sections.  Why would different organisms share the same useless genetic sequences, unless they were related?  From here:
Pseudogenes

"There are very many examples of redundant pseudogenes shared between primates and
humans. One is the yh-globin gene, a hemoglobin pseudogene. It is shared among the
primates only, in the exact chromosomal location, with the same mutations that destroy
its function as a protein-coding gene (Goodman et al. 1989). Another example is the
steroid 21-hydroxylase gene. Humans have two copies of the steroid 21-hydroxylase gene,
a functional one and a untranslated pseudogene. Inactivation of the functional gene leads
to congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH, a rare and serious genetic disease), giving
positive evidence that the 21-hydroxylase pseudogene lacks its proper function. Both
chimpanzees and humans share the same eight base-pair deletion in this pseudogene that
renders it incapable of its normal function (Kawaguchi et al. 1992)."

Explain this without evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:00 AM on February 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon38, did you even read this article? The only "evidence" was increasing complexity in (created) computers.

Of course I read the article, did you???  From the same article you claim "The only "evidence" was increasing complexity in (created) computers.":

"From our current perspective it appears that multicellular life evolved from single cells in two stages.  First, single cell organisms evolved the ability to form loose cooperative communities, called biofilms, that can perhaps be thought of as “training wheels” for multicellular life.  Perhaps the earliest colony bacteria were the cyanobacteria that evolved more than three billion years ago. Their fossil remains are visible today because these colonies secreted a thick gel as protection from solar radiation unattenuated by (then nonexistent) atmospheric ozone. This gel, in turn, trapped sand and debris from the surf which, together with lime secreted by the bacteria, formed the beautiful patterns of the Stromatolite fossil reefs visible in Australia (see image at left). These structures vary in size from twig-size to semi-truck size.


Biofilms remain common today.  Present-day examples of biofilms include slime mold, dental plaque, films on rocks in streams and many more.  They are complex ecologies of single-cell organisms that include algae, bacteria, protozoa, cyanobacteria, fungi, and viruses"

So it contains much more than computer simulations.  Fossil evidence of colonies of single celled organisms from 3 billion years ago.  So we see the forerunners of multicelluar life forming at least 3 billion years ago.  Guess you missed that in your initial reading....

I know you copy/pasted some of this one, but did you really "read" it?

As I showed above, I read it, but it's obvious you didn't because you missed the part were it mentions the fossil evidence we have for the formation of single celled colonies 3 billion years ago.

The premise  is that since the genes of this organism contain some of the same proteins that other organisms cells use to communicate than it is "evolving" the ability to have multi-cells.

Wrong, you still don't understand evolution, do you.  That's not the premise at all.  Didn't you read this statement in the article I referenced?
"The researchers conclude that the presence of the full three-component signaling system may have played a role in the development of metazoan organisms whose cells could communicate with each other in complex
ways."
It goes toward common descent.  Why do multicellular organisms share these components with single celled organisms?  

That assumes that the known use of these proteins is the only use of these proteins.

Again, didn't you bother to read the article??  It doesn't assume anything:
"The research also suggests that the genetic ability to express these three molecules may potentially give cells a wide range of communication possibilities, including uses within single cells."
Looks to like the scientists are postulating "a wide range of communication possibilities", not "the only use of these proteins", as you claim.

As Lester so eloquently pointed out, it is based entirely on a presupposition.

Eloquent? More like "uninformed".  I guess both you and Lester missed this part:
"Animals depend on tyrosine phosphorylation to conduct a number of important communications between their cells, including immune system responses, hormone system stimulation and other crucial functions. These phospho-tyrosine signaling pathways utilize a three-part system of molecular components to make these communications possible.

Tyrosine kinases (TyrK) 'write' messages between cells by adding phospho-tyrosine modifications, protein tyrosine phosphatases (PTP) are molecules that modify or 'erase' these modifications, and Src Homolgy 2 (SH2) molecules 'read' these modifications so the recipient cell gets the message."

These claims don't look like assumptions to me, more like observed, experimentally tested facts.  But you're certainly welcome to refute them.  It's just that you and Lester like to dodge all the specific claims I make and can't discuss actual evidence (transitional fossil lines like the reptile to mammal line).


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:05 AM on February 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38
, it shows HOW single celled organisms could have evolved into multicelled organisms.  It is a viable path from single cell to multicell.


Exactly –and that is how they could have - if it is true.
I understand the desire to find the hypothetical pathways but is that desire based on philosophy or science? Science is not done in a vacuum –everybody has their worldview or framework into which they fit things. Nobody is a blank slate with no preconceptions. When you find a fossil, you have a picture of millions of years of slow accumulation of past life forms in your head – you have accepted that but long ago other people made that concept up and they did it in an attempt to explain things apart from the creative intelligence that was the major viewpoint at the time. First the geologists with their uniformatarianism then Darwin applying the same concept to biology. In the 1770’s it was believed (by those who had accepted long ages) that the world was about 70 000 years old. The guesstimates increased along with the theory of evolution that required long ages to make it even vaguely feasible. Radiometric dating only came along in the mid-1900’s and was accepted so readily because it gave the sorts of ages that evolutionists were looking for. It gave backup to their prejudices, so to speak.

Since the "stories" are based on only the evidence, so they are as valid as real biologists can make them.


Like I said, the evidence comes with philosophical baggage attached –there is no vacuum into which you drop and examine the evidence.

And you are quite incorrect, evolutin isn't a philosophy, it's a scientific theory, that's one of your many problems.


I wouldn’t be too sure about that –and that is one of your many problems.

All incorrect, evolution has been observed


Depending on your definition of ‘evolution.’ If you are talking about minor variation then yes, that has been observed. If you’re talking about reptile to bird or unicellular to multicellular - that has never been observed. That is the story- telling part of ‘evolution.’

As to a fair number of biologists who don't believe in evolution, utter rubbish, over 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution.  Please show us the biologists who don't and why.  You make a lot of claims but come up short backing them up.


Read “Slaughter of the Dissidents” by Dr Jerry Bergman or watch the movie “No Intelligence Allowed.” Of course all you’ll say, parroting your equally biased associates, is “refuted, refuted, refuted” as if by using the word willy nilly in every situation as it arises and without proper attention to the details, somehow truth will have been served.

Evolution is not a belief, it's a well observed, fully supported fact.


Only the minor variation part has been observed remember. That is the science part. The rest is a prejudiced belief system. It is also known as science fiction.

Yes it has, evolution has been observed and experimets have been repeated, extensively, so much so that evolution is a fact, you know, the real scientific method.  You are wrong here also.


See above –I’m all for experimental verification. Only variation has been observed. The rest …..

Well you've obviously never looked at the fossil record because there are thousands of undisputable transitional forms.  


‘Fraid not, it is you that hasn’t looked. Not thousands and all that there are, are utterly disputable –it is called clutching at straws. I believe it, therefore I see it.

Ask any paleontologists and they'll tell you most organisms do NOT frossilize when they die.


Yes we all know that that is the general idea but that still doesn’t explain how you can get billions of different fully formed fish fossils found all over the world but the billions of should be transitionals, all lost. That’s a bit of a hard pill to swallow. I’m afraid. The dinosaurs as well –where are their ancestors? Why do we have dinosaur museums full of dinosaurs but none of the links leading up to their appearance. Even books on dinosaurs call it a ‘mystery’. There’s only so much mystery I can take I’m afraid.

And how do you explain the "few undisputable " transitional forms that you admit exist?


You must have misread that –I definitely said ‘disputable.’

Thus, it is apparent that, during the evolutionary transition from reptile to mammal, the jaw joints must have shifted from one bone to another


You seem to be having trouble separating fact from story telling here. Remember ‘must have’ could easily be more honestly put as ‘may have, if evolution is true.’
This is what I have been calling the ‘unobserved part’ of evolution –the part you assume to be true once you have eliminated the creator as an option.

You're the only one claiming it was a complex start, the experts on the other hand say DNA clearly evolved.  


I think you’ll find on closer examination that DNA is assumed to have evolved, hence the term ‘junk DNA’ –that is by no means proven either.
Simpler life forms would have a simpler recipe since they have less to them. That, by no means, makes DNA simple –it is, nonetheless, a code and where there is code there is inevitably intelligence when you trace it back to its origin.
The jump from Precambrian to the diversity of Cambrian invertebrates belies the gradual transition story.

But if the mutation isn't incompatable with life, if it provides a benefit to organism, it is selected for!


Yes, but according to information theorists, there has never been a beneficial mutation demonstrated that has been shown to have increased information in its genome. The benefit comes only from loss of pre-existing information, which, under certain circumstances may be beneficial. This does not support the concept of evolution, it supports devolution.

Do you actually believe that butterfly DECIDES to transform????  No, no , no, it's an evolved instinct!  


Evolutionists sure make it sound like the caterpillar decided to do this. Can you imagine how many mutations would have had to arrive simultaneously and timeously in order for that strange demented caterpillar who decided to close itself up in a cocoon, to emerge as a butterfly?? And then what did it mate with? Was there another one which, fortuitously and at close quarters, just happened to produce the same random mutations at the same time and also emerged a butterfly such that further generations of butterflies became feasible?

It’s like a computer programme –genetic information from an intelligent source makes so much more sense than random haphazard chance, it is just a no brainer.

just because you don't understand how a caterpillar changes into a butterfly and just because you can't be bothered to research it, doesn't mean Goddidit.


And just because you are quite sure that there is no God to do it and that God is not a necessary part of the equation, does not mean that God did not do it.

The hallmark of intelligent design is simplicity.


Says who – I doubt that that is an accepted statement. We are talking superintelligence of the creator that created your brain. How do we decide how or why He did it the way He did? We are pretty complex creatures –we must need some pretty complicated programming.

DNA is incredibly complex, it has many broken and usless sections.  Why would different organisms share the same useless genetic sequences, unless they were related?


How do we decide what is useless? Why is it that anything that has an unknown function is believed to have no function until they find out what its function is? Why assume that, unless you believe in evolution?

Creationists believe in deterioration of an originally perfect genome (fitting in splendidly with the demonstrable increasing mutational genetic  load) but they tend to first assume function rather than no function and that is more helpful to science since an evolutionist would be inclined to pass useful things over as useless evolutionary baggage on impulse, otherwise known as ‘evolutiondidit.’






-------
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: 05:02 AM on February 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:02 AM on February 15, 2009 :

Yes, but according to information theorists, there has never been a beneficial mutation demonstrated that has been shown to have increased information in its genome.


This is certainly touted widely in creationist circles, but you won't find a non-creationist information theorist who states this.  Werner Gitt certainly doesn't count.




-------
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: 08:35 AM on February 15, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So it contains much more than computer simulations.  Fossil evidence of colonies of single celled organisms from 3 billion years ago.  So we see the forerunners of multicelluar life forming at least 3 billion years ago.  Guess you missed that in your initial reading....


No, I didn't miss that. I just wondered what that has to do with EVIDENCE of multicellular life forming from colonies. It is an observation, bacterial colonies, followed by a guess. But I suppose that counts as irrefutable proof to evolutionists.

Again, didn't you bother to read the article??  It doesn't assume anything:
"The research also suggests that the genetic ability to express these three molecules may potentially give cells a wide range of communication possibilities, including uses within single cells."


Please explain to me how these highlighted words, which are key components to the paragraph, do not imply assumption?
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:03 AM on February 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Assumption would be "Must be this way".

If something suggests that it may be that way, there's no assumption. Crystal clear.



-------
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: 2:34 PM on February 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
Even the well educated can be willfully ignorant as wisp demonstrates.
Yeah. I'm willfully ignorant about baseball.

How did you know?

Faith doesn't require lack of evidence.
Yeah... Like when i say that i have faith in my ability to move my fingers. I do have evidence (i've done it before).
Faith is resting on something even if you don't have full understanding.
Correct.

But you shouldn't say that you have faith about the specific parts that you already figured out. That would be understanding. And it's like a cheater faith.
I have faith in airliners even though it would seem impossible that 100's of tons of metal can fly.
Indeed! I've read about aerodynamics... But that thing is huge!

But, again, if you're filled with faith on the flight... Then you're clueless... So i maintain my point.
And even if I understood the physics completely I would still have faith that it could fly.
If you understand something completely, there's no room for faith. I thought we had already agreed that faith required a lack of understanding.

But the landslide is caused by the release of potential energy stored in the rock. The clap may have triggered the release of the energy but the clap didn't cause the energy to be there in the first place.
A careful examination reveals that you're absolutely correct.

But... Were you trying to make a point? Because mine still applies. Nowhere did you say that the clapping didn't cause the landslide.

Hum... But i think i understand Lester10's point. He choses to call it "cause" only if it's "greater" than the effects. But why? Is there any intellectual advantage in such concept? I don't see it. I can't say it's wrong. I just don't see it.

Can anyone show me the intellectual advantage?

-They're trying to determine the cause of the crash.
-Ok, but remember that the cause must be greater than the crash.
-Huh?

It does sound crazy that people would believe man could evolve from simple single celled organisms.
Why?

I showed you clear examples of single celled organisms starting to form more complex forms of life. You said nothing about the subject.

Every biblical passage about God's miracles reveal how He is not omnipotent.
What? Doing miracles reveals lack of omnipotence? Unusual logic here.
Read carefully. I never said that.

You're right. It is much easier to be willingly ignorant.
Willingly ignorant about what?

To a bunch of my questions about God's creation you answered "I don't know". Are you willingly ignorant about those things, or is it involuntary?

So to you, believing in something you can't prove is called "understanding"?
No.

Or is that only if the supernatural is not involved?
I don't understand the question. Can you please rephrase? I don't know what "that" is.

And deny you the prospect of rattling a creationists cage? I think not.
I don't feel like googling that expression right now. Tomorrow, maybe.
(btw, wisp- definately is spelled "definitely";)
I definately know that.
It's not likely that you catch me misspelling a word from Latin.

Definire > definitvs > definite > definitely.

Lester10

Demon 38
Why is it crazy to think single celled orgainisms can evolve into more complex orgainisms.
Because such a thing has never been experimentally demonstrated.
What do you mean? What do you want? You want a 100.000.000 year experiment?

Even the potential ability has never been demonstrated -it has merely been assumed by those who believe that it happened.
Initially yes, it was assumed. And very well assumed. Now we have the strongest evidence. But i didn't even need that. There was no other way, and i understood that.
I searched for that evidence because it's interesting.
Like i studied statistics and thermodynamics. Not to prove or disprove anything.

What we actually see is that you get variations within a kind, not variations leading to a different kind of creature.
We give you clear transitionals and you ignore them. And then pretend that you have refuted us with your silence.

Orion
You 've already been shown how sindle cell orgainisms can become multi cell organisms
No we haven't. Perhaps there is a genetic programme that allows that to happen?
I did show you. You're in denial. And yes, of course there's a "programme" that does that. Except if by "programme" you mean something with a programmer.

How do you think a caterpillar turns into a butterfly?
DNA instructions. Your "programme".

Maybe it has a genetic programme that causes that to happen? Sure makes more sense to me.
^o)
More than what? Of course that's how it happens! Whoever said otherwise?

Nothing can do what it is not programmed to do.
False. Somethings can make "mistakes".

All the coordinated activities are programmed to work together and all the correct proteins are programmed to be produced at just the right time in just the right quantities.
When things go right, yes.

If it could do what it does without a programme, I would call that the greater miracle.
Does anyone understand what Lester10 is saying here?

What we need to ask ourselves is not 'how did the caterpillar managed to adapt into it's amazing life cycle?' but rather 'who is the programmer of life?"
Please, answer this: Who programmed the parasites?

Lester10

Lester10
"I think most 'evolution' is totally unnecessary on the practical level".
What I mean is that macro and micro are lumped together under the name 'evolution' as if the two are synonymous. All of the macro part is assumed while the micro part is experimentally demonstrated. The micro part is important. The macro part is imaginary extrapolation.
Err... I already said that i understood that's what you meant.

You get upward mobility in some parts of the whole.
Yes but only when biological machines or physical laws do the ordering.
Hahaha! Man...

That reminds me of a sign i read once in a supermarket. It was about a coupon, and it said it was valid "Only for edibles and non-edibles". Haha!

But your case is worse. Because biological machines follow physical laws.

So the physical laws do the ordering. Whoever said it was otherwise?

Oh, yeah, YOU!
You said there was a magical being who did the ordering!!

That's what we, as dissipative systems, are all about.
So perhaps we are programmed to do this. Our biological machinary is programmed and without that there is no local upward mobility in any part.
Not true.

Did you understand that i was not talking just about living creatures?

I was also speaking about potato chips, grains of salt, river pebbles, snowflakes...

They could be a proof for a lot of gods.
Well then, in your quest for truth, you need to look to the story that is least contradictory to science and reality and most verifiable historically.
Stories tend to be the silliest aspect of religions.

I think it's silly for any religion to rely on historical facts. That's a weakness.

I've read that Buddhist monks are told to meditate on the possibility that Buddha didn't exist.


Lester10
wisp
Lester10
so Christianity is actually an intelligent faith
I love a good oxymoron.
It is only oxymoronic in your personal opinion.
No.

"Intelligent" comes from the Latin verb "intelligere", which means "to understand".
"Faith" means believing without understanding.

Be honest and take that claim back.

The Bible says time had a beginning and life has a creator who is himself eternal. No contradiction there.
Indeed. No contradiction there.

Unless you don't like the possibility, in which case you create your own miracles in big bangs producing matter out of nothing at all.
Please, stop pretending that you know my beliefs about that.

Well personally, I believe you are wrong and should read it again. Try the New Testament and read the book of John first. Ask the God that doesn't exist to help you to understand.
What part of it do you think i didn't understand?

I already read that. And if i do it again, i'll be told to read it yet again, and so on.

Is there some IQ limitation to be able to understand the bible?

The 'Big Bang' requires miracles without a miracle maker.
I guess it depends on your definition of "miracle".

I don't believe in miracles. It's an ignorant concept. And i don't mean it as an insult.

The tag "miracle" means we don't know how something happened (but only if we think that what happened was good). That's what i mean by "ignorant". It comes from ignorance. About how things work.

At least our miracles have a cause.
But your cause has no cause.

So which is the more ignorant or imagination-filled story?
The garden of Eden, with vegetarian lions, and a unicorn, a fruit that gives you knowledge, and a magical being making man out of clay. Oh, and no rainbows (the magical being would make those after killing an entire planet).

He's almighty. He could have made Adam without even snapping His fingers. But he was like "What the heck, i feel like molding".

-Lord, i feel lonely.
-Ok, i'll make you a woman.
-Oh, do you need some dust?
-Na ah. I feel like using a rib this time.

And He doesn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the fruit of knowledge of good and evil... He doesn't want them to lose their innocence, right?

Well, His mitake was to make such a tree and put it on display in the center of the garden. What a prick!

And then comes the punishment. Adam will have to work and sweat. Eve will have terrible pains in childbirth.
And then the snake (the one that fucked up everything, remember?).

-Snake! You will crawl on your belly!
-But I already... Oh, right! Ooooh, yeah, you got me there... Ooooh, i had it comming...

How can you be sure it is not you and your evolutionist friends easing your minds with the Big Bang story?
Fewer crazy random unnecessary elements.

If you're talking about matter, microbiologists are molecules.
Ah yes, but not the 'original' unicellular conglomerations of molecules.
Huh?

I know microbiologists are not unicellular. What's your point?

They are 'evolved.'
So?

It is a long and drawn out, extremely inventive story of progress against all odds....and all evidence.
Oh, because you have evidence of a unicorn, and a vegetarian lion, and rib clonning...

If you mean Evolution, i don't believe it by faith. I understand it. Since i was a kid.I heard the basics and i started thinking by myself. You should try it!
I also understood it since I heard the basics and was thinking by myself.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! No, you didn't.


Creationists ask things like "Why don't we finnd a crocoduck?".

You DON'T understand Evolution.
You didn't understand thermodynamics either.
Or statistics.

Then later on, I heard the evidence against my faith (all that stuff they systematically keep out of schools and universities as part of the indoctrination process) and I decided to 'put away childish things' as it were and get with the real programme -the one I had chosen to reject when I 'intelligently' chose evolution.
I bet you were just scared of the prospect of dying.

And 'suspect' would be the correct word to use since there is no way of proving that any such evolution occurred -we need to remain suspicious.
Yeah, but you read biblical contradictions and you suspect nothing against it...

There are no real contradictions in the TOE.

The stories sound good, no doubt,
Well, creationist stories don't.

Why would God make things in a way that can be explained so precisely by the TOE?

Lester10
Demon38
And virtually all biologists accept the theory of evolution as fact.
Well it would be difficult not to, since that is all they are fed.
I wasn't fed anything. I paid little to no attention in school. I did my own thinking.

Scientists are critical with themselves. Creationists are not.

Not only are there a fair number of biologists that do not believe it, there are also a lot that pretend to believe in order to stay employed.
Hahaha! And they do well! I would fire them.

A little like communist Russia or the inquisition, wouldn't you think?
More like job qualifications.

And there again we have a story based on a belief that 'evolution' is in fact true. This has never been 'observed' or 'repeated' -you know, the real scientific method; it has been supposed and the story has been knitted together from that supposition.
Haha! They only believe in "microevolution" because that can be seen in a lifetime.

But they believe that biblical kinds spread from the ark, and underwent a superfast evolution. Is it not like that?

If you take a good long look at the real fossil evidence, there are enormous gaps all over the place and very few disputable 'transitional' forms where there should be billions.
Who says there should be billions?

If all animals were here 6k years ago, then we truly should find billions.

How about the dinosaurs -more than enough fossils of them; but you tell me what led up to the dinosaurs -where are all their ancestors?
Buried, of course. They were reptiles. And they were our ancestors too.

How come unicellular organisms jumped clear over a vast gulley to become an amazing diversity of invertebrates
No, silly.





Those are steps. No jump.

with nothing showing how they diversified or how they are linked.
No matter how many times we show you.

At least we do listen to your silly stories. You recognize that our stories are good. Well, sorry but i can't pay that conmpliment back. Yous are not.

Lester10
Demon38
The change from reptile to mammal is incredibly well supported in the fossil record
If you believe that it happened then it may seem that way but perhaps it is just more likely than the other absolutely unsupported jumps and that makes you feel more positive.
You see how you don't understand Evolution?

There's no jump.

There are stable and unstable periods in the evolution. We have the steady development, the rapid shift of ESS (evolutionary stable strategy)... But we don't have what you would call "jumps".

Or perhaps i'm mistaken about your concept of jump.

Oh yeah right down there at the beginning. Pretty complex start. Again you can't 'see' how it happened, you can only imagine based on your pre-existing belief system/ worldview/philosophy.
...which works. You should add that. And works wonderfuly too!

Not quite -natural selection is a pretty conservative thing. It tries to maintain biological creatures within limits. If there is mutation and that mutation is incompatible with life because the programme is too corrupted, then they die. Natural selection only selects what already exists, it has no creative abilities.
We have meiosis and mutation.

And you have a poor understanding of Evolution.

Such a lot of mutations -how do you think the butterfly ever emerged from the cocoon if all those changes didn't happen fortuitously the first time it got it into its head to hide itself away inside the cocoon.
First time that... Oh, man, are you clueless... And you're short of imagination.

I don't think so -it would take a looot more than a moron to design life. All our best brains can't do it so why suppose a moron was responsible?
He doesn't. He supposes that nobody was responsible.

But if anyone designed me, i'd complain about my blind spot. And about not being able to produce vitamin C.

I'd also complain about my balls. Why do they need to be cooler than the rest of my body?

Why would He design animal instincts according to ESS (evolutionary stable strategies) instead of serving the best interest of your species?

Parasites are among the most amazing creatures on Earth. And yet creationists never claim that their god made those. Why?

Besides the DNA is too complex. It has lots of rubbish.

Our very DNA contains information to develop a tail, a fur, and lots of other unnecessary stuff.

You can say that He started with monkey ADN, and made some quick last minute changes, because the sabbath was approaching, but the TOE is simpler.

Simpler is better.

timbrx
The premise  is that since the genes of this organism contain some of the same proteins that other organisms cells use to communicate than it is "evolving" the ability to have multi-cells.
OMG... What????

Man, pay attention to your readings. You're starting to sound Lester10ish.

Nobody said or implied that. Only that THOSE single celled organisms stem from the same ancestors that WE stem from. I.E. common descent.

That assumes that the known use of these proteins is the only use of these proteins.
I guess that would be correct if your previous statement was true. It is not, though.



-------
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: 3:23 PM on February 15, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp,
Did you ever wonder why you get so few answers to your many questions? I bet you think it's because we are scared or something. Most of the time it is because you keep doing this point after point conversational type thing that is ridiculous to try and rebut. Sure you have some good points and some not so good. But as for me, I just don't want to crawl through that mess. That's why I may pick one or two points at a time to address and skip over some of the silliness.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 6:08 PM on February 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:57 AM on February 14, 2009 :
How about the dinosaurs -more than enough fossils of them; but you tell me what led up to the dinosaurs -where are all their ancestors?


How many do you want?




-------
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: 11:29 PM on February 15, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.