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
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolutionists rarely attempt to calculate the probability of chance occurrence in their imagined evolutionary scenarios. While there is no way to measure the probability of chance occurrence of something as complex as the eye, there are ways to calculate the probability of the chance occurrence of individual protein molecules that are essential to life. Over a thousand different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function.

Proteins are polymers, whose chemical composition depends on the arrangement of many smaller subunits called amino acids. There are 20 different kinds of amino acids that are used to construct the proteins of all living organisms, including man. These amino acids are linked together end-to-end (like a string of beads) to form a single protein macromolecule. The average protein consists of a string of 500 amino acids. The total number of combinations of 20 different amino acids in such a string is, for all practical purposes, unlimited. Each protein in our body, however, must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly. It is the task of the genetic system in our cells to organize the assembly of the amino acids into precisely the right sequence for each protein.

Proteins have been called informational macromolecules because their amino acid sequence spells out information, in much the same way as the letters of the alphabet can be arranged to form a sentence or paragraph. We can appreciate the improbability of randomly assembling one of the essential proteins of life by considering the probability of randomly assembling the letters of the alphabet to form even a simple phrase in English.

Imagine if we were to try to spell out the 23 letters and spaces in the phrase "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION" by using the evolutionary principle of chance. We might proceed by randomly drawing characters from a Scrabble set consisting of the 26 letters of the alphabet plus a space (for a total of 27). The probability of getting any particular letter or space in our phrase using this method would be one chance out of 27 (expressed as 1/27). The probability of getting all 23 letters and spaces in the order required for our phrase can be calculated by multiplying together the probability of getting each letter and space (1/27 x 1/27 x 1/27 -- for a total of 23 times). This calculation reveals that we could expect to succeed in correctly spelling our phrase by chance, approximately once in eight hundred, million, trillion, trillion draws! If we were to hurry the process along and draw our letters at the rate of a billion per second, we could expect to spell our simple little phrase once in 26 thousand, trillion years! But even this is a "virtual certainty" compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance!

The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (that's the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion light years square (about 1 x 10^150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a "room" full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10^180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our "room" full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!

Evolutionists counter that the whole probability argument is irrelevant since evolution is utterly purposeless, and thus never tries to make anything in particular! They insist, more over, that "natural selection" makes the impossible, possible. But evolutionists were vigorously challenged on this claim by mathematicians in a symposium held at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (the proceedings were published in the book, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution) Murray Eden, Professor of Engineering at M.I.T. said:

"The chance emergence of man is like the probability of typing at random a meaningful library of one thousand volumes using the following procedure: Begin with a meaningful phrase, retype it with a few mistakes, make it longer by adding letters; then examine the result to see if the new phrase is meaningful. Repeat this process until the library is complete."

I will leave it to the reader to consider the probability that an intelligent Designer and Builder can intelligently design and build an eye.



 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 8:27 PM on February 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You left out this part:

Copyright © 1997 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Obviously criminal activity doesn't bother you.


-------
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: 10:19 PM on February 17, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You don't see much in the way of probability calculations among evolutionary biologists for the simple reason that the calculations such as the ones you give are fatally flawed, as pointed out in other posts on this forum.

I'm certainly no expert on the subject of probability, but I can point out several flaws.

1 - evolution did not occur in a single sequential trial.  There were countless parallel trials occuring all at once, and continuously.

2 - more complex proteins surely evolved from  more simple proteins.  Gene duplication could account for more complex proteins.

3 - What makes you think that only a specific set of proteins are the only solution?  There could have been numerous possible outcomes.  

4 - Proteins that held an advantageous benefit were passed on.  Those of detrimental value were not.  Simply put -  What works is passed on.  What doesn't, isn't.

5 - chemical principles which lead to protein stability.  Unstable proteins don't get created.

6 - Evolution doesn't always result in the best protein for the job.  But the protein still gets the job done.  Here's an interesting example of a lab experiment that mimics the evolution of a protein that binds ATP (Adenosine triphosphate) used in the cell for energy transport.

ATP protein evolved in lab

Note that the parental protein was an 80 amino acid sequence radomly selected from a list of 400 trillion possibilities.  By comparison the library of Congress only list 134 million items.  

The resulting ATP binding protein that was evolved in the lab turned out to be different from the original parent protein by only two amino acids.  Yet this lab protein was better than the version found in nature in regards to stability, solubility, and heat stability.

Obviously there are more than one protein solution for the ATP binding protein.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:19 AM on February 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I will leave it to the reader to consider the probability that an intelligent Designer and Builder can intelligently design and build an eye.
Which eye? That of the octopus, with it's cool movable lens?

Or our stupid eye, with an idiotic bendable lens and the nonsensical retina flipped backwards and the moronic blind spot?

Instead of dropping new PRATT (allow me the oxymoron) why don't you try to help your creationist fellows in the other threads?

Try to see how many times they had the last word.

Anyway, who thinks this person will post again?


(Edited by wisp 2/18/2009 at 06:26 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: 05:48 AM on February 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They come, and feel confident enough that they have something so important and new (Murray Eden? Come on!!!) to say that starting a thread is necessary, instead of doing some reading.

That's a clear creationist trait.

My guess is that there's some selective pressure to make them that way.
It would be this: Those creationists who do read about evolution die (as creationists).

Wouldn't it be cool if there was some restriction to start a thread? Like having 5 posts, or something.



-------
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: 06:22 AM on February 18, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And I can point out a few flaws in your flaws.

1 - evolution did not occur in a single sequential trial.  There were countless parallel trials occuring all at once, and continuously.

So lets say that amino acids are bumping into each other all over the place and some combine into a useful protein. Useful for what? And now this new protein has to bump into another friendly protein before it decays? Than what? The protein needs a job.

2 - more complex proteins surely evolved from  more simple proteins.  Gene duplication could account for more complex proteins.

So now our unemployed proteins go to school and get a degree from the Gene. What gene? I didn't think we had a gene yet.

3 - What makes you think that only a specific set of proteins are the only solution?  There could have been numerous possible outcomes.

Billions of unemployed proteins of all different trades sitting in the primordial unemployment office.

4 - Proteins that held an advantageous benefit were passed on.  Those of detrimental value were not.  Simply put -  What works is passed on.  What doesn't, isn't.

Skilled labor gets a job. Janitor in the Gene school?

5 - chemical principles which lead to protein stability.  Unstable proteins don't get created.

So now you believe in creation? (joke). Apply the chemical principal to the supposed original environment. Can any protein form let alone last in a primitive hostile environment?

6 - Evolution doesn't always result in the best protein for the job.  But the protein still gets the job done.

What job? Where did the cell come from? Abiogenesis? Did the proteins in the unemployment office form a union? Now we'll never get them to work unless we provide benefits.

Here's an interesting example of a lab experiment that mimics the evolution of a protein that binds ATP (Adenosine triphosphate) used in the cell for energy transport.


So now that we have a simple cell, it needs to eat. I guess it has plenty since it was born in a bowl of soup. It has just enough "stuff" to replicate. Now we have lots of little laboratories experimenting with food. After a couple of billion years of playing simbot we get people among other things.

And you are telling me this doesn't require faith? You have more faith than I do.

Posted by Apoapsis at Tue February 17, 2009 - 10:19 PM
You left out this part:

Copyright © 1997 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Obviously criminal activity doesn't bother you.


Well I guess that discounts the entire argument. Thanks for pointing that out.
Oh, wait. You think creationists think they are perfect or something? We have to tie our hands while relativists trot out all kinds of copyrighted pictures and things? If a creationist commits a crime than all arguments lose their validity?
Come on, apoapsis. At least refute something within the article rather than whether the article should even be posted here.

Which eye? That of the octopus, with it's cool movable lens?

Or our stupid eye, with an idiotic bendable lens and the nonsensical retina flipped backwards and the moronic blind spot?

So your opinion that the human eye is a poor design even though the backwards retina protects the photo-receptors from light damage is grounds for dismissing this entire article?
Look at this one article (I know, creationist web site and all, but you can hold your nose for ten minutes while you read it with your poorly designed eyes.)http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:16 AM on February 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx - the original poster was trying to say that the probability of any specific protein being created at random was a very improbably small number.

My points were not made to explain abiogenesis, but to show that using a single probability figure in calculating the chance of a specific 500 amino acid protein chain evolving is useless when you're talking about evolution, or the origin of life.  There are other factors that make the probability calculation irrelevant.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:11 PM on February 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
So your opinion that the human eye is a poor design even though the backwards retina protects the photo-receptors from light damage is grounds for dismissing this entire article?
Nah.

The ground for dismissal is quite clear. It's just the same old creationist probabilistic nonsense.

While there is no way to measure the probability of chance occurrence of something as complex as the eye,
Starting from what? In what conditions?

The eye evolved from an almost eye. What would the chances be? Pretty high, i'd say.

there are ways to calculate the probability of the chance occurrence of individual protein molecules that are essential to life.
From a dead environment or what? Just one environment or many? How extensive? In how much time?

Over a thousand different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function.
This is so moronic that if you don't see it is because you don't want to.

What's the purpose of mentioning human proteins when talking about abiogenesis?

These amino acids are linked together end-to-end (like a string of beads) to form a single protein macromolecule.
Is the article talking about abiogenesis or what?

The author should make a decision and commit to it.

Each protein in our body, however, must contain a specific sequence of amino acids if it is to function properly.
Ok, he said "body", so it's not about abiogenesis...

So, chances of such proteins, in living organisms... Pretty high, i'd say. I mean, we kinda see it everywhere, all the time, right?

Besides, Murray Eden really REALLY recanted (while Darwin did not, in spite of creationist claims).

timbrx
Look at this one article (I know, creationist web site and all, but you can hold your nose for ten minutes while you read it with your poorly designed
I didn't read it complete. I don't think i need to.

I know that the retina is protected from harmful light waves. Why wouldn't it be?

Evolution did its best with what it had at hand (like it always does).

If Evolution had the octopus eye to work with it would have done a much better job (i mean the final product). It would have developed protective layers, but with the optic nerve going the right way. Presto, no blind spot.

Personally i would have made an extra eyelid. Transparent but shaded.

Or two internal polarized layers. When you give any of them 1/4 of a turn, it blocks most light. You would be able to adjust the light level.

Have you noticed that creationists say "God did it" about anything good, and blame "devolution" for anything not that good?

Would you say that the parasites i posted in Alternate Theory Biology Class are... devolved?

Perhaps some of your fellow creationists would say that our flipped retina was due to devolution, instead of claiming that it's a good design. I mean, creationism is always so divided.

They are certain that every fossil is human or no-human. There's a clear distinction, they say. That's as far as their agreement goes.



-------
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: 6:39 PM on February 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Over a thousand different kinds of proteins have been identified in the human body, and each has a unique chemical composition necessary for its own particular function.



The problem with this statement is that it is looking at the problem backwards.  You see a thousand different proteins that make up the human body and say 'the probability of this set of proteins arising by random chance is astonishingly small, as to be essentially zero.'

The flaw, of course, is that the 1000 different proteins were not brought together by random chance.  We see this set of proteins in the human body because that's what the process of natural selection and evolution lead to - that's what worked along the long evolutionary road that lead to Homo sapiens.  Whose to say that it couldn't have been a completely different set of proteins that would have worked equally, or better?

The first precursor cells to life didn't start with a thousand proteins.  Some viruses only contain a handful of genes coding for a handful of proteins.  

What we see in the fossil record is that life evolved from more simple forms of life to more complex forms.  Life started with smaller building blocks, so to speak, and used them to build more complex building blocks.  Look at the evolution of flight.  The Wright brothers didn't start with a 747.  They started out with a relatively simple airframe with motor and propellor attached.  Life evolved in a similar fashion - only with natural selection driving the process.  We have given plenty of examples of experiments conducted in the lab that parallel the process of natural selection.  It works.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:42 PM on February 18, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What we see in the fossil record is that life evolved from more simple forms of life to more complex forms.  Life started with smaller building blocks, so to speak, and used them to build more complex building blocks.

We still keep coming back to the same old problem. Even the simplest cell is a finely tuned precision instrument. If only one of the complex processes doesn't function correctly than the cell dies. I don't know about statistics but I would guess that it would be pretty improbable for something to arise with even one complex aspect let alone several. But lets say something very simple came alive. Now for it to increase in complexity it needs to develop all of the necessary components to meet the needs of the new system. So all of the components would either have to arise at the same time or the living thing would have to retain a part that is useless for untold generations until one of them gets another part. The two parts than would have to begin working together or continue as useless parts passed on until something else developed. I would hate to be the mathematician charged with coming up with that probability.

Sight is a good example. One of you previously mentioned a light sensitive bacteria or something, suggesting that sight would eventually evolve from this humble beginning. I'm curious as to how complex this simplest form of sight really is? Could one allele added to a DNA strand account for this? Or do several things have to work together for this to happen? What system has to be in place for the living thing to even be able to make use of the recognition of light?

Life evolved in a similar fashion - only with natural selection driving the process.  We have given plenty of examples of experiments conducted in the lab that parallel the process of natural selection.  It works.

Now we're back to this again. Natural selection, selective breeding, all parts of the inter-species aspect of evolution. Proven, observable fact. But to stretch this into the extra-species aspect of evolution requires a leap of faith. Evidence "points to" but nothing "proves".
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 9:59 PM on February 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx -

I'll agree it would be facinating to know how the first cells got going.  There are clues and hypotheses.  All I can say is the material is out there for you to read if you like.  I've only read a tiny fraction of it myself.

If you think its all too improbable to happen without a Creator, I'm fine with that.  I look around and see the diversity of life in this world and it's truly amazing to behold.  There  is a strong yearning to know our origins.  But I also see patterns, the beauty and unification that evolution brings to it all.  We don't know all the answers.  But for me it makes sense.

To you it doesn't, and you embrace a different concept of life's origins.  I can respect that.

I have a question for you to ponder, and I'm curious about your point of view on it.  I heard on an astronomy program that there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth.  Now that's a LOT of stars!  The universe is immense, and I would say beyond human comphrehension really, although there is evidence that it is finite.

Astronomers are in the process of discovering planets orbiting other stars, and it is becoming apparent that planetary formation is a common part of star formation to a large degree.  Would you agree to that?

Given that there are an immense number of planets in the entire universe, do you think that Earth is the only place that has life on it?  Or do you think God has populated life on other planets as well?

I have never really heard a Creationist address that question before, and I'm curious what you think. Before Galileo the heavens only contained a few thousand stars, at most.  And I'm not sure that they were considered as 'suns' in their own right.  They were more like mere points of light in the filament.

Just curious.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:17 AM on February 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If only one of the complex processes doesn't function correctly than the cell dies.
Are you sure? What's your basis?

I don't know about statistics but I would guess that it would be pretty improbable for something to arise with even one complex aspect let alone several.
Why? You have energy input which locally reduces entropy.

But lets say something very simple came alive.
Perhaps none of us (i'm including you) would call something simple "alive".

Now for it to increase in complexity it needs to develop all of the necessary components to meet the needs of the new system.
Not really true. They can be developed in parts.

Would you like to hear the explanation for the development of the bacterial flagellum?

So all of the components would either have to arise at the same time or the living thing would have to retain a part that is useless for untold generations until one of them gets another part.
Not really. There are other ways. Like gene duplication, which allows for new functions to arise based upon previous ones.
Duplicated genes can mutate randomly ("randomly" added for emphasis, not that there are non-random mutations) with no harm to the cell.

The two parts than would have to begin working together or continue as useless parts passed on until something else developed.
Yeah, well... That's not the way it always happens, but sometimes it does. We do have lots of useless genes, that could develop a new function. I'm pretty sure that it can happen. Would you like me to do some research about it?

I would hate to be the mathematician charged with coming up with that probability.
Well, lots of parallel trials, like orion says, lots of time, lots of different environments... Things will get complex, i tell you.

Sight is a good example. One of you previously mentioned a light sensitive bacteria or something,
Yeap. I did.
suggesting that sight would eventually evolve from this humble beginning.
Well, it could. I don't think that's how it happened though. I'd guess that vision in animals was developed in animals, and not bacteria.

I'm curious as to how complex this simplest form of sight really is?
Interesting question.
Could one allele added to a DNA strand account for this?
Depends on your definition of "allele". We've already seen that yours is different from mine.

But if one "allele" gave you such a great advantage, it would no longer be an allele. It would dominate. At least that would be the case with sexual species.

Or do several things have to work together for this to happen?
My guess is that it does not happen in just one way. There are more than one way.

Natural selection, selective breeding, all parts of the inter-species aspect of evolution.
I would truly want to know what a species is to you. No dictionary definitions. The wallaby and the kangaroo. One species or two? Do they have a common ancestor? Do all marsupials have a common ancestor?

I think you've already answered "I don't know" to this one. If that's the case, why argue about species?

Proven, observable fact. But to stretch this into the extra-species aspect of evolution requires a leap of faith.
Can't we agree that evidence driven "faith" is not faith?

Evidence "points to" but nothing "proves".
Are we talking about science or mathematics?



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:43 AM on February 19, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx

Darwin made a simple but profound and relevant observation. He observed that “Nature is profligate.”
She constantly ‘produces’ millions of individuals so that just a few might survive and reproduce. Applying this principle at the molecular level (talking about abiogenesis now) nature almost certainly ‘produced’ vast numbers of ‘experimental’ complex molecules and only a very small number of those ‘survived’ . So not only did ‘evolution’ produce the few complex molecules that you have deemed unlikely but vast numbers of others as well most of which were shortlived and not destined to ‘evolve’ any further. Not only did the ‘impossible’ accident happen but a multitiude of similar accidents happened and the small handful of complex chemicals we see in living things today is just a small sample of natures handiwork. The whole creationist probability argument is simply misguided and illustrative of the simple-minded approach of religious fundamentalists of all types.

Creationists simply haven’t  grasped the enormity or the real complexity and wonder of the world in which we live. Their time-frames and processes are reduced to orders of magnitude that are manageable by the unbelievably limited God that they posit. In reality they reduce the world to fit within the limits of their own imaginations. How many times have we heard creationists say that they just cant  ‘believe’ that a human eye could ‘evolve’ from a few light-sensitive chemicals in some simpler organism. The underlying  assumption of this argument is that natural mechanisms are constrained to processes that the creationists own  intellect can fathom. But nature is not so constrained… naturally.

Creationists are quick to say that a human eye or a dolphins skin or bats hearing couldn’t happen and the only alternative their limited imaginations can grasp is to anthropmorphose God into some sort handiman who has cobbled together this odd assortment of plants and animals for no greater purpose than to amuse him/herself   and to give one of them (unsurprisingly, the creationist) an occupation.

Creationists seem to believe that by attributing all things to God they have somehow accessed a great wonder and that they are plumbing the depths of wonder and mystery when, in fact, they are grossly oversimplifying matters and missing the real wonder of being alive in this spectacular universe.
This universe is far more complex and vastly more interesting than the mechanical model of their ‘clockmaker’ God. For heavens’s sake, they don’t even understand the genius of the literature that they call scripture and reduce to an extended program of simple-minded,   concrete propositions.

All I can say to Creationists is …  read Genesis again with an open mind and an intelligent commentary. If you keep doing this long enough you might one day come to see that it is mythical narrative and NOT a ‘scientific’  treatise and that AS mythical narrative it tells truths that are far beyond the capacity of science to tell.  For the moment you are like a person who reads Macbeth and believes it to be ‘history’.



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 05:24 AM on February 19, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus

The correct interpretation of the creationist's probablilty calculation is that it is unlikely that complex molecules were formed in a particular way. Now they need to explain, precisely, the mechanism that they have assumed for the purpose of their calculation.
Then, for my benefit at least, they might go on to explain what they think this mechanism has to do with evolution.
The interesting thing really is that their results suggest that the formation of complex molecules by some completely random process is actually possible.



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 06:13 AM on February 19, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just think the numbers and odds are far too great for such complex things mentioned to have popped into existence, including a simple individual cell and form by chance. If you were to flip a coin 20,000,000,000,000 times, what are the chances it will come up heads 380,000 times in a row? Certainly not in supposed 13.7 billion years the universe has been around. Do our intelligent minds allow for possibility that staggering odds are commonplace?
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 4:53 PM on February 19, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus

Impossibly unlikely things are happening around us all the time. The fact that the prior probability of an event is very low is not a mathematical problem for evolution. Furthermore, the random abiogenesis event assumed by the MIT mathemeticians is not the only possible pathway for abiogenesis to have occured.
Basically, our inability to 'imagine' how abiogenesis occured is not evidence for its impossibility.



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 6:33 PM on February 19, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus maximusI just think the numbers and odds are far too great for such complex things mentioned to have popped into existence, including a simple individual cell and form by chance. If you were to flip a coin 20,000,000,000,000 times, what are the chances it will come up heads 380,000 times in a row? Certainly not in supposed 13.7 billion years the universe has been around. Do our intelligent minds allow for possibility that staggering odds are commonplace?


Gluteus my man, to when you post odds after the fact you are guilty of the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" or as waterboy more eloquently described  "the fallacy of figuring out odds after the fact".  

Here let me put this in it's proper perspective... Let's say I deal out 52 cards...What do you think the odds are that I would deal them in the exact order I dealt them in? 1/52 * 1/51*1/50...1/1==> which equates to 1/trillions+!!!   Well heck!!! How is that possible?
What about the guy who wins the Mega Millions?  How is that possible?!!!

http://thesmalltownatheist.blogspot.com/2008/03/fallacy-friday-sharpshooter-fallacy.html
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 6:46 PM on February 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I just think the numbers and odds are far too great for such complex things mentioned to have popped into existence,
Whoever said they "popped"?

including a simple individual cell and form by chance.
Whoever said it did?

If you were to flip a coin 20,000,000,000,000 times, what are the chances it will come up heads 380,000 times in a row?
Aw, don't make me do the math.

What are the odds that meiosis and fertilization produced you? Pretty slim, i tell ya.

Would you say then that the possibility of you having been made by some magical being is more likely?

Do our intelligent minds allow for possibility that staggering odds are commonplace?
Your two posts (my bad, i thought there was going to be just one) are a collection of strawman arguments (you supposedly "disprove" claims that nobody made) and sharpshooter fallacies (you try to determine the possibilities of an event after it happened).



-------
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: 7:42 PM on February 19, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think your logic is twisted, If say you already won the megamillions lottery, what say are the chances you are going to do it again? Even the fact that you won beat astronomical odds, doesn't change the fact that the chances for it to happen once are also astronomical.

Also, I noted that in no time did the genetics of one species ever change into another. This is genetically speaking. If it did, A bird could change into a mountain lion in a matter of one day.
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 9:27 PM on February 19, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus:I think your logic is twisted, If say you already won the megamillions lottery, what say are the chances you are going to do it again? Even the fact that you won beat astronomical odds, doesn't change the fact that the chances for it to happen once are also astronomical.


So like dude...This is what you are you saying:
If humans evolved once on an earth-like planet the odds of them evolving AGAIN on a similar planet would be remote.

I would agree but that is just my opinion.  

gluteus:Also, I noted that in no time did the genetics of one species ever change into another. This is genetically speaking. If it did, A bird could change into a mountain lion in a matter of one day.


Ok...Ok   You got me.   I feel like such a billy goat.  
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:10 PM on February 19, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think your logic is twisted, If say you already won the megamillions lottery, what say are the chances you are going to do it again? Even the fact that you won beat astronomical odds, doesn't change the fact that the chances for it to happen once are also astronomical.


But evolution doesn't happen at random.  There is a selection process involved, and that selection process is what we call Natural Selection - proposed by Darwin.  That's not to say there aren't other factors too, but Natural Selection is very well documented - in the lab too, as well as in nature.

Don't get hung up on misleading probability calculations.

Also, I noted that in no time did the genetics of one species ever change into another. This is genetically speaking. If it did, A bird could change into a mountain lion in a matter of one day.


I think you need to do some reading on the subject.  You're understanding of how evolution works appears to be zippo.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:55 AM on February 20, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus

When do you think God created Culex molestus (London Underground Mosquito)?
And why is it so like Culex pipiens (Found outside the underground)?

This is a really good example of peripatric speciation in progress and progressing quite rapidly.

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v82/n1/full/6884120a.html


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 01:51 AM on February 20, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus

Ensatina eschscholtzii is an example of a 'species complex' or ring species. All that is needed to break this complex into two separate species is for some of the intermediate sub-groups to become extinct... a distinctly possible eventuality in the forseeable future.

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/15/7761.full


God must still be busy making new species even today.

What really amazes me is that you can let God make a human being out of dust but you cant imagine her making a series of small changes that ultimately leads to species divergence.



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 02:19 AM on February 20, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus

Some recent work done on Darwin's Finches is very interesting. The most obvious morphological difference between the various species is, of course, the beaks.
You might ask how the beaks could 'suddenly' change shape. Well if you read this article..

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5689/1462

Seems it only requires a subtle chemical change and/or small differences in developmental timing to  achieve different shaped beaks.

So now consider the large amount of common genetic material between the various hominids. Its not really all that difficult to imagine us all evolving from a common ancestor. Its not quite as 'impossible' as say a fruit-fly turning into an elephant but then no-one has ever suggested that a fruit-fly turned into an elephant.

Seems to me that creationists are the only ones suggesting that complex living organisms were formed suddenly as a result of a fantastic and instantaneous recombination of dust particles. And yet they are also the ones trying to tell us that such events are statistically impossible and require a God to make them happen. Actually.... I think you are right... such an event would require a wizard at least if not actually a God. Wizards are more believable than Gods...  arent they?  Maybe it was a just a wizard who did it.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 03:01 AM on February 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My gluteus...
I think your logic is twisted,
xD
If say you already won the megamillions lottery, what say are the chances you are going to do it again?
The same as before.

And your point is?

Even the fact that you won beat astronomical odds, doesn't change the fact that the chances for it to happen once are also astronomical.
Yeah.

And your point is?

I mean, nobody said that it was me who'd win the lottery.

Likewise the Theory of Evolution never said it would produce exactly you. Yet here you are, and it fits perfectly.

Also, I noted that in no time did the genetics of one species ever change into another.
Of course. You don't believe that any species can transform. So any amount of change you see will make no difference.

This is genetically speaking.
How many elephant species are there today?

Please, answer this one.

If it did, A bird could change into a mountain lion in a matter of one day.
What? Why? How?

On a closer exam, you don't seem to be trying to disprove Evolution. I think nothing you say has anything to do with the Theory of Evolution. Seriously.

I ask again, so you don't forget: How many elephant species are alive today?



-------
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: 07:02 AM on February 20, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where has it been proven that one species actually turned into another? When has one species actually woke up one day and had additional or different genetics. the adaptations and changes over time that you refer to are not manifestation of new genetics but variations of the same genetics. Let me also ask something else I came across and an interesting point. If man has been around in the state of "modern man" for a great length of time, how come there is no history that extends beyond 5000 years? Why are there no artifacts such as televisions and mp3 players from 75000 years ago?


(Edited by gluteus_maximus 2/20/2009 at 5:41 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 5:39 PM on February 20, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where has it been proven that one species actually turned into another? When has one species actually woke up one day and had additional or different genetics.

Nylon eating bacteria.  There, that was easy.  Now admit you were wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:12 PM on February 20, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What? You are betting the farm on that one aspect, nylonase? Kind of weak at first glance. What about civilization pre-5000 years ago?

(Edited by gluteus_maximus 2/20/2009 at 7:04 PM).
 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:55 PM on February 20, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus

You seem to have missed the point about Ensatina eschscholtzii. At opposing ends of the 'ring' they are sufficiently genetically different that they cannot hybridise. One day they WILL wake up and the last of one of the intermediate sub-groups will have died and they will be a new species. BINGO.

Culex molestus has almost completed its divergence from Culex pipiens. Crossing them is already difficult. Evolution has a simple and elegant explanation for this evidence. So can you please answer my Question. When did God create Culex molestus? (Evidence based answer please, since creationism claims to be a science)  



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 7:04 PM on February 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteous. You ask for new species. What would a new species be?

Waterboy made an interesting question. You are ignoring it.

When has one species actually woke up one day and had additional or different genetics.
One species, actually woke up... You're deliberately silly.

Let me also ask something else I came across and an interesting point.
Somehow i doubt it.
If man has been around in the state of "modern man" for a great length of time, how come there is no history that extends beyond 5000 years? Why are there no artifacts such as televisions and mp3 players from 75000 years ago?
Because we were back then as ignorant as you are today.

How many elephant species are alive presently?



-------
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: 7:38 PM on February 20, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What? You are betting the farm on that one aspect, nylonase? Kind of weak at first glance. What about civilization pre-5000 years
ago?


I'm not betting anything, you asked
"Where has it been proven that one species actually turned into another?"

The flavobacterium was now able to digest nylon waste, the strain that it mutated from could not.  The new strain is genetically different, it is a different species and this has been proven beyond a doubt.

What about pre civilization 5000 years ago?  Are you trying to say this same mutation could have evolved 5000 years ago?  Maybe it did but because there was no nylonase back then, such a mutation would have been deterimental to the flavobacterium and would have been selected against, all flavobacterium that had this mutation would have died off.  Since a species consists of a population, not just individual organsims, there would NOT have been a species of nylon eating bacteria 5000 years ago.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:13 PM on February 20, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus

Where has it been proven that one species actually turned into another? When has one species actually woke (sic) up one day and had additional or different genetics. the adaptations and changes over time that you refer to are not manifestation of new genetics but variations of the same genetics.


Practically every individual begins with a unique set of genetic material. Within each population individuals vary, as you say. The point about Culex molestus and Culex pipiens is that they began as two populations of the same species but Culex molestus inhabited a very different environment from pipiens. Over time (just a few decades really) an observable genetic drift has occured in the molestus population to the point where they are different enough from pipiens to make crossing difficult ie they have almost separated off into a new species thus illustrating all three aspects of Darwins theory (variation, selection and geographical isolation). Basically, Darwin predicted that speciation would occur if those three elements existed and here it is happening right before our eyes. How might creation theory have predicted the Culex molestus/pipens scenario?

Given your persistent assertion that there has never been an instance of speciation (pretty difficult to prove that claim) I am left wondering if you have a completely different definition of the word "species" to all the rest of us. Would you care to share your definition of species with us?

Let me also ask something else I came across and an interesting point. If man has been around in the state of "modern man" for a great length of time, how come there is no history that extends beyond 5000 years? Why are there no artifacts such as televisions and mp3 players from 75000 years ago?


I'd like to see an artifact like an mp3 player from just 25 years ago but what would that prove? I really dont understand the point you are trying to make here.

Actually I think mp3 players evolved from cds which evolved from magnetic tapes which evolved from vinyl records which perhpas evolved from piano reels which probably evolved from Jacquard cards. Now Jacquard cards were a really neat invention so maybe Jacquard was actually a God.[random] [random]

(Edited by waterboy 2/20/2009 at 10:50 PM).[b][/b]

(Edited by waterboy 2/20/2009 at 10:52 PM).

(Edited by waterboy 2/21/2009 at 01:43 AM).

(Edited by waterboy 2/21/2009 at 01:45 AM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 10:47 PM on February 20, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If man has been around in the state of "modern man" for a great length of time, how come there is no history that extends beyond 5000 years?

There's plenty of artifacts of modern man that are older than 5,000 years ago.  From here:
OldestCavePainting

"The paintings, which could at first have been mistaken for smudges of dirt, may not have the visual impact of the bull daubed on a cave wall at Lascaux in southern France or the deer of the Altamira Cave in Spain, but they are at least 10,000 years older.

Dr Alessandra Astes, director of the Natural History Museum in Verona, said scientists were able to date the paintings, which measure between one and two feet long, through carbon dating and archaeological stratographic techniques, because the rocks had become detached from the cave wall and were buried under later generations of
debris."

The oldest city, from here:
OldestCity

"The oldest layer of Catal Huyuk yet excavated (virgin soil has not been reached) is reliably carbon dated to 6,500 B.C,, and reveals a thriving, completely developed and planned, city. While no traces of a town preceding the city were found in the excavated areas, it seems reasonable to assume that several hundred years (and possibly several millennia) before 6,500 B.C. the site was occupied, found ideal, and then developed from a village into a town, and finally into a city. "

6,500 B.C., that's 8,500 years ago.  Looks like you didn't do any research before you made that ludicrous claim of no history beyond 5,000 years ago...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:23 AM on February 21, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why did my post get deleted? I have taken exception to Wisp's rudeness and so pointed it out. Why did my post get deleted?


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 09:49 AM on February 21, 2009 | IP
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Use the report post feature for offensive posts.

 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 10:04 AM on February 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me also ask something else I came across and an interesting point. If man has been around in the state of "modern man" for a great length of time, how come there is no history that extends beyond 5000 years? Why are there no artifacts such as televisions and mp3 players from 75000 years ago?

gluteus - at first I thought this was a very bizzare question.  Ridiculous, really.  

But then I got to thinking that we are looking at things from a vastly different perspective.  For a Creationist, its a perfectly valid question.  From your point of view, people have been on earth for what, 6,000 years?  In that time we have gone from living a casual life in the Garden of Eden, lived through numerous catastrophes, developed civilization, and have reached the point of technology that we have today.  So imagine what we could do in 25,000 years, 50,000 years, or 100,000 years.  If Homo sapiens were the same species as Evolutionists claim 100,000 years ago as today, then why aren't we much more advanced technologically today?  What have people been doing for all that time prior to written history?  

Your question brings up a good point:  Why did civilization arise, not only once, but in a number of areas around the world within a few thousand years of each other?  From an evolutionary perspective our species has been around for something like 250,000 years.  So why did it take us so long?  Good question.

As Demon38 points out there are artifacts left from humans well before the advent of written history.

Blombos Cave Art - discovered recently in South Africa date back about 70,000 years.

Lascaux Cave Paintings - the earliest European cave paintings date back about 32,000 years ago.  

Stone Tools – during the Paleolithic (about 2.6 mya to the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago.  Stone tools were used by earlier hominid species, besides H sapiens.

During most of the 250,000 years H. sapiens have been around we have been food foragers and hunters.  Then about 10,000 years ago agriculture first appeared in the Fertile Crescent, near the great rivers of the Euphrates, Tigris, and Nile.  Agriculture also developed independently in China, New Guinea, India, and some areas in the Americas.  So what triggered this change from being foragers/hunters to farmers, which led to the development of civilizations?  

One hypothesis is that the development of agriculture occurred because of a shift in climate.

When major climate change took place at the time of the end of the last ice age c.11,000 BC much of the earth became subject to long dry seasons. These conditions favoured annual plants which die off in the long dry season, leaving a dormant seed or tuber. These plants put more energy into producing seeds than into woody growth. An abundance of readily storable wild grains and pulses enabled hunter-gatherers in some areas to form the first settled villages at this time.

Humans in many different areas of the earth took up farming in what is, set against the 500,000 year age span of modern humans, a very short time. This is the most convincing evidence that global climate change, and the resultant adaptations by vegetation, were the cause of the beginning of agriculture.



From here:
Origins of Agriculture
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:34 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I dug a bit deeper and came across this:

" Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 200 years.  So why didn't mankind discover modern amenities 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?
It was unimaginable to doctors back then, that washing one's hands somehow was related to a patient's health in the operating room.  Can you believe that?  Evolutionists today are just as ignorant of the truth of God's Word, and of common sense itself.  It's hard to imagine that millions of people were dying from a simple lack of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) just a couple hundred years ago.  If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons.  And ironically, man has only learned these lessons in the past couple hundred years.  You've got to be kidding me!  Don't tell me that it took mankind BILLIONS of years to learn to wash his hands to prevent disease!  The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn to wash his hands"

If we were to suffer an iceage now, we would have the means to weather it out, like the eskimos perhaps, or with our vast use of electricity/solar power and modern amenities/

I submit this not in any mean spirited way as I like to be civil so as to get your take on it.





 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 2:02 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hum... You're right, orion!

From a creationist perspective that question does make sense... How remarkable!

What then could have prevented us from learning and developing stuff?

Perhaps it was moving around, and religions.

Evolutionists today are just as ignorant of the truth of God's Word, and of common sense itself.
Yeah... Like "Don't boil a lamb in its mother's milk". Real common sense.

Or "don't round your beard".

"Kill those from other religions", that's also common sense... Because only your religion can be the true one, so people from other religions are doomed anyway... Yahweh didn't seem to like conversions back then...

It's hard to imagine that millions of people were dying from a simple lack of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) just a couple hundred years ago.
Oh, don't get me started on the Vitamin C! (By the way, probably all of us know that ascorbic acid means vitamin C.)

Why did your God deprive us of the ability to make our own, like most mammals?

Go ahead. Say "devolution". I dare you.

If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons.
With our rapid advance Evolution will be a kindergarten lesson in some years.

The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn to wash his hands"
Why don't you claim "The truth is that there's a canopy over our heads that holds the water above it"?



-------
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: 4:50 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion

This question might be asked of civilisation whether it were 5000yrs old or 500,000yrs old.
We could take an historical or paleontological approach to answering it as you have started to do. I think, however, that the question clearly illustrates a problem common to many creationist ideas and to fundamentalist thinking in general. I call it the 'Garden of Eden Problem'.

The Garden of Eden describes the world as God made it, ideal in every way. Man has corrupted it and set in process 'changes'.
In a similar vein Fundamentalists imagine that the early Christian Church was ideal, reflecting the fundamental values that Jesus taught and they yearn to re-establish the Church as it 'originally' was.

Essentially fundamentalists look back, romantically, to past times that they have 'idealised' as static 'scenes' like the Garden of Eden and long for a return to life as 'imagined' in their ideal. Change, of course, is usually taking us away from that ideal so they are 'battling against the tide'.

Another static image that Christian fundamentalist cling to is Heaven which is the hope that they will actually return to a 'Garden of Eden' eventually even if not in this world.

The ultimate ideal is, of course, their unchanging God. Constancy is fundamental. Good things remain the same. Change must, therefore, be a sign of evil.

For this reason change is always a problem to them and non-linear change is even more problematic. You and I simply recognise that change occurs unevenly and sometimes progresses exponentially. The evidence is before us so that's how it is. Fundamentalism cannot embrace change. Why would God create an ideal world but include a mechanism that must inevitably bring about changes. It doesnt make sense.

The evidence before the Christian fundamentalist is that the Garden of Eden is how the world should be, the Early Church is how the Church should be. There cant be anything prior to the Garden of Eden because that implies that God created a world that wasnt ideal and that it somehow only became ideal over time. That doesnt make sense to them as they  are wont to remind us over and over.

Many of the arguments put up by creationists are flawed by their propensity to assume constancy. For example they observe that the moon is moving away from the earth then assume that the rate of movement has been constant and produce their bizarre calculations of the earths age and so on.

Gluteous question has similar elements. It includes an assumption that 'modern man' has remained unchanged throughout history. There is also an assumption that civilisation should have progressed evenly and linearly. Creationist and fundamentalist thinking is everywhere flawed by its inability to comprehend and accept change.






(Edited by waterboy 2/21/2009 at 6:27 PM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 5:14 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteus -

if you had read the article I posted above you would have seen that an agricultural society was not necessarily better than a hunting/gathering way of life.  But it was the development of agriculture that spurred the development of civilization.  And natural selection had an important part to play in that process.

Hunter gatherers
We are wrong if we assume that the change from hunter gathering to farming bought an improvement in the quality of the human life or in the humans themselves. Skeletal evidence reveals that hunter gatherers were in fact, taller, better nourished, suffered less disease and lived longer than farmers. The gathering of wild grains produces more calories of food for each calorie of energy invested than any form of agriculture

. Hunter-gatherers typically get more of their energy from gathering plant sources, usually done by women, than from hunting. Their diet is extremely diverse and thereby balanced, between 3000 and 5000 plants were gathered as food in North America. Hunter gathering humans had developed superior stone tool making skills, bone needles and fish-hooks, jewellery, art and music over 30,000 years prior to the advent of agriculture. We have discovered from the last remaining hunter-gatherer societies that these people have an encyclopaedic knowledge of plants and their uses and names for every species.

No hunter gatherer would voluntarily change to farming. The practice of cultivation developed gradually in settled communities over thousands of years. Migrant mothers have to carry around their children and generally have longer birth intervals and lower birth rates than settled people. Increased population required increased food enforcing more reliance on agriculture.
Settled agriculturists can survive at higher population densities estimated to be 10-100 times greater than hunter-gatherers.



So there was something that triggered the development of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.  Climate change might have been one factor.  Human domestication of plants had an impact that shows natural selection at work.

How did humans domesticate plants?
The mutation, which marks the beginning of domesticated crops, was the loss of wild mechanisms in grasses and legumes for the scattering of seeds. Humans selected for grains whose stalks had failed to shatter and legumes whose pods failed to explode. Simply by cultivating the seed which was easiest to collect humans unintentionally caused a genetic change in plants. The resultant plants, lacking any means of seed dispersal, could not have survived without human intervention.

Annual plants had evolved ways to spread the germination of their seeds over several years in order to survive particularly bad weather. Seeds which sprouted immediately would have been the ones which were collected and then sown by the first farmers. Thus agricultural practice led to the loss of dormant seeds. Sowing and harvesting in bulk on the same occasion selected for plants that grew at more uniform rates.

Farmers also selected for noticeable qualities such as size and taste. Different plants were selected for differing features such as bigger seeds, bigger fruits or oilier seeds. Plants which put more energy into the production of one part usually do so at the expense of another; squashes selected for larger fruit developed smaller leaves. Some plants were selected for different characteristics such as beets already grown in Babylonian times for their leaves (chard), beets were then developed for their edible roots and eventually in the 18th century for their sugar content. Corn, now one of the world's staple crops, may owe it's domestication to it's use in ritual and not as a food. Teosinte the probable ancestor of corn has a tiny seed enclosed in a hard coating. Farmers in Central America bred hundreds of distinct varieties of varied colours for differing purposes. Archaeologists debate how many 100's or 1000's of years corn cobs took to reach thumb size. Olives, flax, safflower, oil palm and rapeseed were selected for oil content. Hemp, fax and cotton were selected for their use as fibre. Domesticated their stimulants qualities were tobacco in North America, coca and mate in South America, coffee in Ethiopia and tea, ginseng and camphor in China. Some plants which produced poisonous compounds were domesticated from mutant individuals which lacked the poison. Wild relatives of almonds, potatoes, aubegines, watermelons, cabbages and lima beans were all too bitter or poisonous for human consumption



Your statement contains the following:
Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 200 years.

And why do you think there has been so much advancement in the last 200 years?  Simple - to a large degree this was due to the development of the scientific method.

So why didn't mankind discover modern amenities 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?


Could it be because people were too busy with the business of survival?  Keep in mind that people did not exist 100,000,000 years ago.  Dinosaurs were around, but not people.

It was unimaginable to doctors back then, that washing one's hands somehow was related to a patient's health in the operating room.  Can you believe that?

Yes, I can believe that hand-washing was not practiced before the discovery of the micro-organisms by Antony van Leeuwenhoek in the late 17th century.

Evolutionists today are just as ignorant of the truth of God's Word, and of common sense itself.

I am guilty of understanding the truth of God's word, I will admit that.  As to common sense, common sense isn't always correct.  If you didn't know better, would you say that the sun appears to revolve around the earth once every day?  If you didn't know better, would you think that the earth was actually a sphere?  If you didn't know better, would you not think that the earth was stationary and unmoving?

We only know things like this because of the extrordinary genius of men like Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and others.  

Keep in mind that Western Civilization declined after the fall of the Roman Empire and entered a period of very little progress through the Middle Ages over the next 1000 years.  It's interesting to note the correlation between the rise of Christianity during this time through Europe - a period known as the Dark Ages.  A time during which myticism and superstition pervailed, along with the dominating power of the Church.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:50 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So why didn't mankind discover modern amenities 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?

They were too busy trying to stay alive.  Hunting and gathering was a time consuming, deadly business.  There was no time to experiment, there was no time to right down what worked and what didn't, there simply wasn't enough time for these people to discover these modern amenities.

If evolution is true, then it took man billions of years to learn all these kindergarten lessons.

Again, we see your source for this claim is ignorant of evolution, modern man has only been around for about 130,000 years, not billions of years.  

The truth is that mankind has taken baby-steps since 4,000 B.C., and it did take him nearly 6,000 years to learn to wash his
hands"


Once again, mankind has been around a lot longer than 6,000 years, what's your point?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:53 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It just seems to me that if man has been around in his present state for 130,000 years, why did it take until 200 years ago for him to see the light of modernity? Why would he have still written on cave walls as recently as 5-8K years ago? Why would man wait a thousand centuries before utilizing his brain to capacity? Maybe it's me but I sense a disconnect.

 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 6:27 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Listen gluteus - if you were stuck on an island, maybe along with a few other people, none of you had any modern day knowledge, didn't know how to read and write, didn't know anything about modern society, didn't know anything about the world around you except that island - would you know how to make paper or papyrus?  Would you even need it?  Would you even think of it?

What would you think about the sun, the planets, the stars?  I bet you would believe the sun revolved around the earth.  I would.  

What about agriculture?  I would bet you would be a food forager and hunter to the day you died on that island.  I'm sure I would if I were in that position.

Why would man wait a thousand centuries before utilizing his brain to capacity?

Intelligence and having knowledge are two different things.  Someone could be a very cunning hunter and tool-maker, know what plants are good to eat and which ones were poisonous.  Practical knowledge that would be passed down from generation to generation and/or gained from experience.  But being intelligent doesn't mean that you automatically know where you came from, or knowing how to make paper, or know about agriculture.  

gluteus - do you know how to make paper?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:24 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would man wait a thousand centuries before utilizing his brain to capacity?


Looking at this question another way - why doesn't Man use his brain capacity to solve all the problems we face in the world today?  Overpopulation?  Global warming?  Pollution?  War?  

Why doesn't Man use his brain capacity to build spaceships that can travel to the stars?


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:30 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gluteous

It just seems to me that if man has been around in his present state for 130,000 years, ...  and centuries before utilizing his brain to capacity? Maybe it's me but I sense a disconnect.


It's not JUST you. There are plenty of people who think like you but you do illustrate here the sort of subjectivity that is anathema to science.

The evidence is clear. Human society HAS become very complex and much of that change HAS happened in the last 200 yrs. There is also plenty of EVIDENCE that Society in Europe was quite stagnant from the end of the Roman Empire through to the Renaissance.

There is also evidence that human societies in other places have experienced long periods of stability and short bursts of dramatic change.

There is nothing strange in the fact that it took a very long time to invent the television (a retrograde step in the progress of society in my view... but thats another story). The 'fact' is that we are NOT the same as people who lived 10,000 yrs ago even if we are genetically similar (there probably has been some genetic drift in that period).

If you want to understand complexity an excellent starting point would be Teillhard de Chardin's  "The Phenomenon of Man". Teillhard was a Jesuit priest and he explored ways of understanding evolution in a 'spirited' world while maintaining Christian beliefs. It is also preshadows to some extent modern work on complexity. A great read for any Christian with a passing interest in science.

You might also consider Sir Isaac Newtons famous statement "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants." to help you understand why the progress of civilisation is so uneven.

At the end of the day a 'scientific' response to the clear evidence of increasing complexity in human society would be to formulate a theory based purely on that evidence. Your "sense of disconnect" and your "disbelief" are purely subjective responses to something you have difficulty understanding.  Through the dark ages the Church allowed such thinking to dominate western society and stifle progress. There is almost a thousand years lost already. There is evidence to support the theory that religion and superstition constrained and slowed the progress of civilisation for many thousands of years.  








-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 7:52 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

gluteus:It just seems to me that if man has been around in his present state for 130,000 years, why did it take until 200 years ago for him to see the light of modernity? Why would he have still written on cave walls as recently as 5-8K years ago? Why would man wait a thousand centuries before utilizing his brain to capacity? Maybe it's me but I sense a disconnect.


Gluteus, until things like food gathering tools, weapons,  languages, alphabets, and agriculture were invented, humans were "bug and berry gathering" primates who didn't have a lot of time on their hands to invent things like moveable type printing presses, and micro-processors.  Early on, the technology growth was small, but once the inventions started piling up humans could build off of the foundations of previous inventions (like language) and speed up the time it took to develop new technologies.  What I'm trying to say is, Thomas Edison would not have invented the light bulb if he first had to invent the alphabet.

Look at it this way...Do you find it strange that most of the computer and communications technology you use didn't exist until the micro-processor was invented?

What about all the devices  you use to travel  long distances?  None of these started popping up until about 100 or so years ago which, coincidently, was when a useful internal combustion engine was developed.

What about the Protestant Reformation?  Is it a coincidence that it gained prominence a little bit after Gutenburg intoduced his moveable type printing press to Europe and gave the masses access to Bibles?  Huh?




 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 7:52 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

waterboy:...Through the dark ages the Church allowed such thinking to dominate western society and stifle progress. There is almost a thousand years lost already. There is evidence to support the theory that religion and superstition constrained and slowed the progress of civilisation for many thousands of years.


Things like famines, the beubonic plague, flu viruses and plate tectonics have also been known to put the kabash on the "ascent of man".  At least we haven't pissed off God like the dinosaurs did.  A "Yucatan" asteroid hit would definitely suck worse than a swarm of locusts or a 40 day flood. I supppose the optimistic Christian  would rationalize that it , "Got our minds of the bad economy".

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 8:25 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy -

Very interestingly put about the resistance to change that people have, especially among fundamentalist Christians.  But they better adapt to it because the rate of change in our society is only going to increase.

In fact, speaking of change, if you look at the change in society/civilization over time it shows an 'evolution' of increasingly more complex structure.

Now where have we seen an example of things changing from simple to more complex entities over time?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:13 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
gluteus_maximus

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

130,000 year is a LONG time. real long.


 


Posts: 151 | Posted: 11:28 PM on February 21, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not compared to 14,000,000,000 years it isnt.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 12:02 AM on February 22, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 29 30 ]
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.