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
     micro to macro
       how does it not work

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm sure this forum has had this discussion before, as it is somewhat common among evolution-creation debates. But I want to see what people here think about it.

Everyone with a tiny bit of knowledge about evolution and half a brain doesn't reject mirco-evolution; changes within species. But what prevents a population, with enough time, from evolving into something so different that it can no longer be considered part of the same kind as what was started with.

Note: I am using kind as an undetermined taxonomic rank higher than species since we have observed populations evolve into different species.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 3:31 PM on July 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But what prevents a population, with enough time, from evolving into something so different that it can no longer be considered part of the same kind as what was started with.


0bservation. We never see it. Surely we should at least see something turning into something else? Some nascent organs emerging? Positive mutation leading to increased information? Something.
At this point all we ever see is kind giving rise to kind. If you know of any observable exceptions, I'd like to know about them.

If it is to be scientifically established, we either have to observe it or we have to have good reason to believe that it is possible.


-------
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: 02:22 AM on July 5, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

0bservation. We never see it.

Sure we do, in the fossil record.  There are many examples, I always liked the reptile to mammal transition series of fossils where we can see the bones of the reptilian second jaw joint migrate to become the mammals inner ear bones over millions of years.  From here:
ReptiletoMammal

"The transition from reptile to mammal has an excellent record. The following fossils are just a sampling. In particular, these fossils document the transition of one type of jaw joint into another. Reptiles have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw. Mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. These species show transitional jaw-ear arrangements (Hunt 1997; White 2002b). The sequence shows transitional stages in other features, too, such as skull, vertebrae, ribs, and toes.


Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum.
Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright.
Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge.
Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright.
Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a).
Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing.
Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981).
Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b). "

Evidence so clear that no biologist doubts that reptiles evolved into mammals.  It is scientifically established beyond a shadow of a doubt.  The complete opposite of what you claim.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:01 AM on July 5, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

We observe that at different times in geological history todays organisms do not appear... consistently! Other organisms are found that do not exist today. Going back in time far enough we find very different and generally much simpler organisms.

I know YECs have issues with dating... thats another story but given the dating that scientists are working with they make inferences. And in science its quite ok to make inferences from observations without ever directly observing that which is inferred (though naturally its good if you can).

One could infer progressive creation... but that would not be 'scientific' as it depends on the belief system of the observer and therefore does not satisfy the scientific requirements of objectivity, refutability and testability.  

Science looks for better hypotheses that can actually be tested.

Evolution meets the necessary requirements and is thus a worthy scientific hypothesis. That doesnt mean its true... just that it is a satisfactory working hypothesis. In scientific terms evolution has proved itself to be a very good theory indeed as it has resisted many and concerted efforts to refute it, suggested many predictions that have regularly proved to be accurate and it continues to generate new scientific effort.

Is it absolutely true in the sense demanded by YECs? Well it probably is very close to the truth but what the heck. When it works so well, scientist are going to keep using it.

If creation theory was half as useful as evolution theory then scientists would use it too. But its not very useful at all and most scientists will say that is because creation lacks objectivity and is neither refutable nor testable. Even if it were true it would still be a useless theory because we can't create stuff ouselves and God seems to have moved on from the whole creation thing. Creation is an inherently useless theory!



-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 04:11 AM on July 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:22 AM on July 5, 2009 :
Positive mutation leading to increased information? Something.


There is no example that would meet your private definition of information.  Increases measurable using generally accepted information theory are trivial to present.



-------
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: 12:57 PM on July 5, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:22 AM on July 5, 2009 :
But what prevents a population, with enough time, from evolving into something so different that it can no longer be considered part of the same kind as what was started with.


0bservation. We never see it. Surely we should at least see something turning into something else? Some nascent organs emerging? Positive mutation leading to increased information? Something.
At this point all we ever see is kind giving rise to kind. If you know of any observable exceptions, I'd like to know about them.

If it is to be scientifically established, we either have to observe it or we have to have good reason to believe that it is possible.



Firstly, observation is not a reason why organisms cannot evolve drastically. For the differences you are asking it would take millions of years for populations to evolve. And we've only known that organisms change over time for the past few hundred years. There literally hasn't been enough time for recorded documents to confirm observation on evolution like that.

Before I continue can you give me a definition of kind? And how you would know if there was any population that evolved into a new kind? Additionally can you define information, and likewise how to tell if there is an increase or decrease?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:33 PM on July 5, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38
0bservation. We never see it.


Sure we do, in the fossil record.


If we assume that cross species transitions can occur then I’m sure lining up some reptiles and mammals with various similar features will produce a plausible pathway for those particular features which can then be used as circumstantial evidence that if evolution (in the macro sense) were possible, then that might be how it occurred. However we don’t even know that it is possible and the belief that it is possible is all based on philosophy not evidence.

Evolutionists say only natural mechanisms may be used to explain all of life and thus only natural mechanisms must explain all of life (there’s the twist) so then they put fossils in plausible line ups and make statements like “Evidence so clear that no biologist doubts that reptiles evolved into mammals.”

If you look at the mechanism level however, at what mutations are capable of even combined with natural selection, it then becomes a whole lot less plausible to the unitiatiated then it might look to the believers of naturalistic philosophy.

The complete opposite of what you claim.


Most things that remove God from the equation look exactly opposite to what is obvious. It’s like light and dark and good and evil.

Evolutionists accept the following as truth (stated simplistically):

1.Evolution operates in a purposeless manner
2. Evolution operates in a random manner (anything can happen, no sign of purpose or intelligence permitted)

On the basis of the two mechanisms (mutations and natural selection) and the two modes (purposelessness and randomness), only confusion, disorientation, randomness and uselessness could result.

However, the following subhypotheses of evolution are in fact believed:
1.Evolution operates upward, never downward (always producing positive results)
2.Evolution operates irreversibly (Only greater order is ever produced.) –Dollo’s law.
3.Evolution operates from smaller to bigger –Cope’s law –smaller creatures evolve into larger ones eg. The horse series
4.Evolution operates from less complex to more complex
5.Evolution operates from less perfect to more perfect.
6.Evolution is not repeatable (keeping it safe from the prying eyes of scientific investigation.)

Waterboy
Going back in time far enough we find very different and generally much simpler organisms.


Except that complex invertebrates burst forth in all their enormous variety in the Cambrian with no signs of connections between phyla nor evidence of where from. Most of the fossil record is marine life, everything arises suddenly and fully formed and stasis is the general trend observed. Fossil experts know that this is true yet read their philosophy into the contradictory evidence because they have no alternatives. If you consider that the intelligent creator was written out of the equation a priori in the way that one would expect of philosophical naturalism, it is only natural that things look a little bit lopsided and illogical.

How do you decide what is less or more simple?

given the dating that scientists are working with they make inferences. And in science its quite ok to make inferences from observations without ever directly observing that which is inferred (though naturally its good if you can).


Naturally all historical episodes are better clarified with the record of somebody that observed the events. In their absence and with a base of philosophical naturalism from whence all inferences comes, we expect that life came from inert chemicals (what are our alternatives?) and one kind of creature gave rise, over an immense period of time, to other kinds of creatures (what else could possibly be true?)
I just hope that you understand the basic philosophical premise - which may, of course, be completely incorrect.
 
One could infer progressive creation... but that would not be 'scientific' as it depends on the belief system of the observer


As does philosophical naturalism depend on the belief that there is no intelligence behind life and that everything must be explained per that assumption - making it necessary for life to have ‘evolved’ naturally from non-living chemicals and one life form to have ‘evolved’ from another.

Science looks for better hypotheses that can actually be tested.


While never surrendering their basic naturalistic presuppositions.

Evolution meets the necessary requirements and is thus a worthy scientific hypothesis. That doesnt mean its true... just that it is a satisfactory working hypothesis.


Yes, as is intelligent creation only people don’t like to consider that alternative.

In scientific terms evolution has proved itself to be a very good theory indeed as it has resisted many and concerted efforts to refute it, suggested many predictions that have regularly proved to be accurate and it continues to generate new scientific effort.


What else could it do –no alternatives are allowed so it just has to be true. Who needs evidence? Why bother?

When it works so well, scientist are going to keep using it.


Because it avoids allowing a ‘divine foot’ in the door, scientists are going to keep using it and keep insisting that it is science and that they have no bias.

If creation theory was half as useful as evolution theory then scientists would use it too. But its not very useful at all and most scientists will say that is because creation lacks objectivity and is neither refutable nor testable.


Actually you’re wrong. They say both that it is not testable and that it has been tested and refuted. However they can’t have it both ways. As for lacking objectivity, philosophical naturalism lacks objectivity by its assumptions that everything has to be (and thus is) explained by natural mechanisms.

Even if it were true it would still be a useless theory because we can't create stuff ourselves


Please explain.

and God seems to have moved on from the whole creation thing.


According to philisophical naturalists who are looking persistently and purposefully in the wrong direction, hoping that they won’t see anything that looks created, by mistake.

Creation is an inherently useless theory!


No it is the natural,most obvious and only alternative to naturalism.

Fencer 27
And we've only known that organisms change over time for the past few hundred years. There literally hasn't been enough time for recorded documents to confirm observation on evolution like that.


Lucky for the naturalists their story is relatively safe as we can never and will never actually see it happen. We just need to believe!

Unfortunately there are just too many quotes from these same believers in naturalism that in 99% of cases, mutations ( which are random mistakes) lead to adverse effects. To believe “and thus evolution must be true” is ignoring all the evidence to the contrary in favour of one’s preferred belief system.  




(Edited by Lester10 7/6/2009 at 04:40 AM).


-------
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: 04:31 AM on July 6, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

We could discuss complexity and simplicty if you like but lets face it...  a comparison of stromatolites with hominids pretty much clarifies my point.


As for the 'usefulness' of 'creation science' the results speak for themselves. Evolution theory has been a major contributor to the explosion of knowledge of biological systems over the last 150yrs. Prior to that, scientific endeavour was consistently stimied by ecclesiastic interference.

In the last 150yrs 'creation scientists' have made virtually no new contributions to our knowledge of biological systems. Certainly nothing anywhere near the contribution of evolutionary theory.

In fact the whole of scientific knowledge has benefitted from the dropping of the God assumption since at least the enlightenment.

Simple observation tells us that scienctific endeavour is vastly more productive when we do NOT assume the existence of an interfering God.

Even if you are right and everything was originally created by some divinity or other... what use is that knowledge to science?
How could we use that particular piece of information to formulate scientific questions, make predictions and construct new experiments.

Creation science is USELESS because it does not ask questions, make predictions or suggest experiments. Even if it is true... it remains scientifically useless information.








-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 06:01 AM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We could discuss complexity and simplicty if you like but lets face it...  a comparison of stromatolites with hominids pretty much clarifies my point.


In what way is grass more complex than the invertebrates in the Cambrian?

Evolution theory has been a major contributor to the explosion of knowledge of biological systems over the last 150yrs.


No it hasn’t; it is a series of tall stories. Actually, observable repeatable science has been the thing that has contributed to the explosive knowledge of biological systems over the last 150 years. The knowledge of how a liver functions and contributes to an entire organized organism via experimentation and observation seems to me to be of far greater value than a story of how the liver supposedly developed with no plan over eons via random mistakes from creatures with no livers.

In the last 150yrs 'creation scientists' have made virtually no new contributions to our knowledge of biological systems.


How do you know that? Did you take a survey of what they believe? Do they have to believe in evolution in order to contribute to repeatable, observable science do you think?

In fact the whole of scientific knowledge has benefitted from the dropping of the God assumption since at least the enlightenment.


No actually it hasn’t for reasons as stated above. A lot of time has been wasted on rubbishy stories based on an assumed naturalism that isn’t necessarily true. When you find that it is not true, you can start to work out how many man hours and dollars have been wasted in useless speculation.

Simple observation tells us that scienctific endeavour is vastly more productive when we do NOT assume the existence of an interfering God.


So instead we assume that the design of life comes from nowhere and get all confused talking about design in no design terms. We have to assume self ordering sytems on no evidence whatsoever and then get very inventive thereafter to keep it sounding reasonable. There is nothing productive about evolution unless you are talking specifically about variation within a species which nobody denies and which has nothing to do with the bigger naturalistic assumption of macroevolution.

Even if you are right and everything was originally created by some divinity or other... what use is that knowledge to science?


Well it would sure save a lot of time and money wasted on making up tall stories and inventing and re-inventing non-existent relationships between various organisms. We could get down to the business of explaining things in real terms. We could carry on with all the observable repeatable stuff and technological advancements that have nothing whatever to do with macro(imaginary)evolution. Science couldn’t really tell us who the creator was but it shows us clearly that there is one, no matter how we try to deny it for personal reasons.

How could we use that particular piece of information to formulate scientific questions, make predictions and construct new experiments.


Do we really want to waste time and money formulating ‘scientific’ questions on imaginary presuppositions. We could make predictions and construct experiments as science always has done only we’d drop the excess garbage of imaginary macroevolution, which would be a good thing. Macroevolution contributes nothing of value to real ‘science’ while it shuts out the truth.

Creation science is USELESS because it does not ask questions, make predictions or suggest experiments.


It asks as many questions, makes as many predictions and can suggest as many experiments as any other historical science is capable of doing. We might even find that it fits the evidence far better. I think it does.




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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:25 AM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:25 AM on July 6, 2009 :

No it hasn’t; it is a series of tall stories. Actually, observable repeatable science has been the thing that has contributed to the explosive knowledge of biological systems over the last 150 years.


Are atomic orbitals "observational science"?  Should they be taught in high school chemistry?



-------
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: 09:50 AM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are atomic orbitals "observational science"?  Should they be taught in high school chemistry?


Their effects are observable in the present as are the designs of the unseen creator. If you are happy to work with the effects of certain things unseen, why reject the obvious alternative to naturalistic philosophy and refuse to see obvious design wherever you look?

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)  



-------
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: 10:55 AM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And quantum theory describes them perfectly.

You are without excuse.

(Edited by Apoapsis 7/6/2009 at 10:57 AM).


-------
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: 10:57 AM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And quantum theory describes them perfectly.


Have I ever denied that quantum theory may have attributes - go back and look. The only thing I had to say in a negative sense about quantum theory is that something can't come from nothing - as for quanta, they appear to exist -I have no problem with the unseen adequately demonstrated in the present.

Gravity is the same sort of thing.

So is our Creator.



-------
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: 11:59 AM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:59 AM on July 6, 2009 :
The only thing I had to say in a negative sense about quantum theory is that something can't come from nothing - as for quanta, they appear to exist -I have no problem with the unseen adequately demonstrated in the present.


The Casimir effect exists, a physical demonstration of something from nothing.



-------
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: 2:11 PM on July 6, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

In what way is grass more complex than the invertebrates in the Cambrian?

Who said grass is more complex than an invertebrate? You are being deliberately obtuse.

No it hasn’t; it is a series of tall stories.


Are you suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy going on here?

Do they have to believe in evolution in order to contribute to repeatable, observable science do you think?


Evolution is a working hypothesis, NOT a belief system. You clearly do not understand the way science works. You also seem to be ignoring the difference between 'creation science' and science done by scientists who also happen to have a religious faith. It is possible to have a religious faith AND apply the scientific method to one's scientific work. 'Creation scientists' bring their religious assumptions to their scientific work... which is why they are so unproductive.

So instead we assume that the design of life comes from nowhere and get all confused talking about design in no design terms.


The word design, as applied to the structure and function of living organisms, is a metaphor. Confusion may arise from taking the metaphor literally which is probably another part of the reason why creation scientists are so unproductive.

We could carry on with all the observable repeatable stuff and technological advancements that have nothing whatever to do with macro(imaginary)evolution.


You do not seem to appreciate the role of imagination in the acquisition of knowledge. Observations only provide the data from which knowledge might be inferred. If, as you seem to be suggesting, 'creation scientists' eschew the use of imagination in their scientific work then we have yet another, more compelling, explanation for their failure to produce any worthwhile results.




(Edited by waterboy 7/6/2009 at 8:22 PM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 8:18 PM on July 6, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:31 AM on July 6, 2009 :

Lucky for the naturalists their story is relatively safe as we can never and will never actually see it happen. We just need to believe!


We don't need to have blind faith, when sane people look at the real evidence they cannot deny evolution and the bold propositions and predictions that the theory has made. While we may never be able to document something as dramatic as small land mammals evolve into the largest sea creatures of today, we have the fossil evidence that proves it.

Unfortunately there are just too many quotes from these same believers in naturalism that in 99% of cases, mutations ( which are random mistakes) lead to adverse effects.


That is a bunch of BS, while I agree that mutations are random, the overwhelming majority of mutations are neutral. The average human zygote has over 120 point mutations, and the average human gets several more mutations throughout their life. If 99% of all mutations were harmful than we would all be dead in a few generations.

To believe “and thus evolution must be true” is ignoring all the evidence to the contrary in favour of one’s preferred belief system.


I feel some more projecting going on. You guys are really getting good at this projection thing.

On a more serious note, I have not gotten a response that says what mechanism prevents lots of micro changes to accumulate into macro. Direct observation is not a mechanism, it is a lack of a mechanism.

Generally micro evolution refers to allele frequency changes with in a single species/population, while macro evolution is usually referred to as changes that involve speciation. While we have directly observe speciation and thus macro evolution, I am willing to change the definitions of micro and macro for this thread to be as follows:

micro: changes with in kinds
macro: changes that involve kinds changing to different or new kinds

My only request is that you clearly define kinds and what would constitute as a change in kinds. If you have a better definition of micro and macro evolution that you would prefer to use let us all see it. If not, than use the one I gave and give us a definition of kinds or admit that there is nothing but philosophy that prevents macro evolution.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:34 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not very helpful as they suggest two 'types' of evolution. Our observations of speciation occuring involve the accumulation of small changes resulting in species differentiation between an individual and its distant ancestors not species differentiation between an individual and its immediate parents or its siblings.

The introduction of the micro/macro terminology is a misrepresentation of evolution theory. Evolution does not need to be divided into micro and macro versions. Evolution theory predicts that variation, selection and geographical isolation will eventually lead to speciation as geographically isolated populations diverge genetically. There is no 'macro' evolution here... just simple evolution taking place over time. I think a lot of people forget (or have never been aware of) the importance of geographical isolation as part of the evolutionary hypothesis.

The existence of ring species illustrate the geographical isolation requirement of the hypothesis perfectly.

Forget micro-evolution and macro-evolution. There is just evolution which is more than enough to explain all of the biological diversity we see today and throughout geological history.

How , by the way does 'creation theory' explain the late emergence of new 'kinds' of life. Where were all the mammalian type animals 400 million years ago?  Where were all the reptilian type animals 500 million years ago? Ive read, by the way, the young earth stuff and its about the worst science Ive ever come across, totally unconvincing.




-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 02:26 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree Waterboy, there really is no underlying difference between micro and macro when it comes to evolution. But creationists insist that there is, and I created this thread to try and show that there is just evolution. Or at the very least micro+micro=macro

But micro and macro evolution are real terms used by biologists. I know my biology 101 professor did.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 03:02 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

Maybe Im just a lot older than you but no-one was talking about micro/macro evolution back when I was doing biology 101.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 03:17 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy,

No offense but you probably are a lot older than me. I know some real scientists are aware of creationism in America and have started to alter the way they talk about science in books for lay people because of it. Perhaps my professor was aware of it too and just put in micro and macro to avoid any argument in the classroom. But it doesn't explain why she spent a whole class on human evolution though.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 03:28 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

No offence taken.

It doesnt surprise me that she spent time on Human evolution. It is, after all, the HOT topic in evolution and a little bit of controversy is good for a subject.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 03:36 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
The Casimir effect exists, a physical demonstration of something from nothing.


So you reckon that that is the explanation? So would I be correct in saying that the law of conservation of mass/ energy has been breached and no longer applies? I don’t see any revoking of the principle on the net so why should I believe you?

Waterboy
Who said grass is more complex than an invertebrate? You are being deliberately obtuse.


No I am saying that the fossils do not document simple to complex at all. In fact there is a vast array of complex from nowhere in the Cambrian so the hypothesised trend of evolution from simple to complex doesn’t work. In fact what are all the phyla doing right there at the bottom of the ‘geologic column’?
Are you suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy going on here?

Perhaps a conspiracy of silence on the problems with evolutionary theory but more aptly a philosophy has taken over ‘science’ and the evolutionists are not recognizing their philosophical presuppositions. Evolution is a religion on it’s own, it is a belief system that arises when only naturalistic mechanisms are allowed, whether it be true or not. If there is nothing to test or measure it against, it is true by default, not by evidence ie. evidence is totally unnecessary if naturalism just has to be true.

Evolution is a working hypothesis, NOT a belief system.


It is a BELIEF system –you have to believe that only natural law is responsible for the existence of everything. Us invoking God is exactly as prejudiced as you insisting there is no God. If you look at the fossil record and only natural law is allowed to explain it, then you have to invent the stories that explain it whether it agrees with the evidence or not, it’s that simple –you have no alternatives to measure it against. We see design and say there must be a designer, you see design, deny it is real design and then proceed to explain that design via random processes and natural law. You don’t know that it is true. We are measuring one explanation against the other; you have no choice.

You clearly do not understand the way science works.


That is an old excuse for we do not agree with your interpretation which arises from your pre-existing bias (which you refuse to recognize).
You also seem to be ignoring the difference between 'creation science' and science done by scientists who also happen to have a religious faith.


Maybe you do not realize that the only thing that differs is the interpretation of the evidence. It doesn’t matter who puts the data out –we all draw our own conclusions as to what it means. We have our own projects to work on according to the way we see it and you have yours but we can all use each other’s results to interpret and draw conclusions. Your problem I think is that you imagine that everyone that agrees with your interpretation is a ‘scientist’ and if they don’t agree, they are not a scientist because they don’t understand ‘the way science works’.
It is possible to have a religious faith AND apply the scientific method to one's scientific work.


How much science do you think is actually to do with evolution and how much is about applying the scientific method without bias? Most science has nothing to do with evolution. The evolution part is usually an unnecessary veneer applied after the fact. It is only when it comes down to applying the superficial coating of rubbish that creationists have a problem.
Think about bacterial resistance, we think in terms of variation within the kind and natural selection. You think that the bacteria might conceivably turn into an elephant after millions of years but how you feel about it doesn’t affect much in practice because where it came from and what it might turn into is irrelevant as long as the repeatable, observable stuff is noted correctly.

. 'Creation scientists' bring their religious assumptions to their scientific work... which is why they are so unproductive.


Think again in terms of aforementioned. Evolutionists also bring their religious assumptions (there is no God) into their scientific work –generally it makes little difference to anyone’s scientific research except to turn everyone into an atheist or agnostic because of their mistaken belief that ‘science’ knows.

The word design, as applied to the structure and function of living organisms, is a metaphor.


No, actually it might be design and it sure looks like it to the uninitiated non-evolution believer. If you bend and twist your brain a bit, it may no longer look like design, but that does not mean it isn’t. We believe the appearance of design is actual design and you believe it isn’t. So for you it is a metaphor.
which is probably another part of the reason why creation scientists are so unproductive.


….what stops them from being productive? When they see design in design, do they stop operating?
 



-------
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: 04:28 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy
Our observations of speciation occuring involve the accumulation of small changes resulting in species differentiation between an individual and its distant ancestors not species differentiation between an individual and its immediate parents or its siblings.


We still believe that that is in the kind (or micro) as ‘kind’ is not quite ‘species’ unless you call that new ‘species’ a subspecies of that species. I’m not an expert on the terminology but I know that if it looks like a finch, it is still a finch and I do not believe that it is capable of looking like anything but a finch even given mutation and selection over a vast period of time. In fact over a vast period of time, mutation would lead to extinction, due to the accumulated genetic load, not change to something else new and original that is not a finch.

The introduction of the micro/macro terminology is a misrepresentation of evolution theory.


I would call it an acknowledgement rather than a misrepresentation.

Forget micro-evolution and macro-evolution. There is just evolution which is more than enough to explain all of the biological diversity we see today and throughout geological history.


In theory not necessarily in truth.

How , by the way does 'creation theory' explain the late emergence of new 'kinds' of life.


According to us they are not new kinds, they are original created kinds. We believe in catastrophism, not uniformatarianism. Some creationists believe in some kind of progressive creation but I don’t know quite what they are proposing so I won’t try to explain.

Fencer27
I agree Waterboy, there really is no underlying difference between micro and macro when it comes to evolution.


But how would you demonstrate that? All we ever see is micro. How do we know that the big story is true?

Perhaps my professor was aware of it too and just put in micro and macro to avoid any argument in the classroom. But it doesn't explain why she spent a whole class on human evolution though.


Sounds like she’s avoiding arguments but probably believes in macroevolution as an extension of microevolution.    

It is, after all, the HOT topic in evolution and a little bit of controversy is good for a subject.


Couldn’t agree more –far more interesting when you get to weigh alternatives.  




-------
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: 04:56 AM on July 7, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:56 AM on July 7, 2009 :
Fencer27
I agree Waterboy, there really is no underlying difference between micro and macro when it comes to evolution.


But how would you demonstrate that? All we ever see is micro. How do we know that the big story is true?


It is by far a combination of molecular genetics and the fossil record that time and time again only supports the theory of evolution. We know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old with the standard starting point of life at 3.8 billion years ago. We know that evolution is a fact, it is just how far you are willing to use that fact to explain what we have observed. The scientific consensus is that after the initial start of life evolution was in process and evolved single cell organisms into the diversity of life we see today. And this is done through mutations filtered by natural selection over 3.8 billion years. Other than we haven't observed it, which is a lack of a real answer, what reason do you have to limit the explaining power of evolution to variation with in kinds?

P.S. What is a kind, and how do you tell? If supposedly Noah, a few thousand years ago knew, why is it that no YEC that I have ever met or heard of has a real answer to this question.

Perhaps my professor was aware of it too and just put in micro and macro to avoid any argument in the classroom. But it doesn't explain why she spent a whole class on human evolution though.


Sounds like she’s avoiding arguments but probably believes in macroevolution as an extension of microevolution.    

It is, after all, the HOT topic in evolution and a little bit of controversy is good for a subject.


Couldn’t agree more –far more interesting when you get to weigh alternatives.  


Although I don't know of any conversations after class about human evolution, I remember that if you paid attention you could have some really good questions that couldn't yet be explained. And she probably does accept the theory of evolution, as she talked about how major organ systems evolved when we got into anatomy.



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:43 AM on July 8, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer27
It is by far a combination of molecular genetics and the fossil record that time and time again only supports the theory of evolution.


Molecular genetics are contradictory – use molecular genetics and you get a variety of contradictory trees of life. If you want you can get some things to line up but you need to know what you are planning to achieve in order to only use the results that support your presupposition. Even if molecules did line up well between morphologically closely related types of creatures, all that would tell you is that they had similarities, not that they had a common ancestor; what’s to say they didn’t have a common designer?

The fossil record only tells you that lots of things died all over the world. You know that frogs only bring forth frogs today, why believe that frogs were producing pre-reptiles long ago and far away. If you think they were, it is not because the fossil record told you so, it is because you believe it and so you see it in dead bones. It’s imaginative, not evidential; philosophical not scientific.

We know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old with the standard starting point of life at 3.8 billion years ago.


Evolutionists think so based on radioactive decay rates measured in the present which fortunately gives them long age dates for rocks which gives them more reason to believe what they want to believe and that is that evolution happened and had time to happen. (it needs lots of time, so they ignore all the other age indicators on the earth and in the sky).

We know that evolution is a fact,


Micro evolution is a fact; macro evolution is an extrapolation into the unknown, a philosophical necessity required if everything alive is to have a natural explanation.

The scientific consensus is that after the initial start of life evolution was in process and evolved single cell organisms into the diversity of life we see today.


Consensus never decided truth. Consensus has often been wrong. If you start with a philosophical naturalism as your belief system then single celled organisms just have to evolved from lifeless chemicals. You can believe it out of necessity to get your story started but you don’t know if it is even possible. Origin of life out of chemicals has many unresolved problems that I doubt will ever be resolved. Even if you had all the parts for a single cell, who would organize them into life and what makes organization of parts alive? What is life?

And this is done through mutations filtered by natural selection over 3.8 billion years.


Theoretical neo-Darwinism.

Other than we haven't observed it, which is a lack of a real answer, what reason do you have to limit the explaining power of evolution to variation with in kinds?


We have never observed it. Change appears to have limits. If we believe it, we believe it despite the lack of evidence not because we have any evidence that it is possible. Science versus philosophy. Observable science tells me it isn’t happening today. Naturalistic philosophy tells you that it did happen long ago and far away.

P.S. What is a kind, and how do you tell?


Some people seem to think that genus amounts to kind. Others say species vary into subspecies so speciation is just subspecies variation. I’m not a classification expert but it’s all names that have descriptive power. I think we can identify a kind pretty much by looking at it and saying that’s a frog, that’s a finch kind etc. I don’t think we even need to see how far a finch can go but we know that according to all the evidence at our disposal, it will always be recognizably a finch. Variation appears to be programmed into the genes for adaptation to different situations.

And she probably does accept the theory of evolution, as she talked about how major organ systems evolved when we got into anatomy.


I’m sure she must believe it then.





-------
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: 01:53 AM on July 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Waterboy
Evolution meets the necessary requirements and is thus a worthy scientific hypothesis. That doesnt mean its true... just that it is a satisfactory working hypothesis. In scientific terms evolution has proved itself to be a very good theory indeed as it has resisted many and concerted efforts to refute it, suggested many predictions that have regularly proved to be accurate and it continues to generate new scientific effort.

Is it absolutely true in the sense demanded by YECs? Well it probably is very close to the truth but what the heck. When it works so well, scientist are going to keep using it.
Very well said.
Whether we actually believe Evolution to be true or not, the TOE works. It just does.

Perhaps it's because it's true, or because the Devil wants to tempt us, or because Yahweh wants to test our faith, or because the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants to test our faith...



-------
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: 05:24 AM on July 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whether we actually believe Evolution to be true or not, the TOE works


I have to agree that it is the best naturalistic explanation. The problem is whether it is the best explanation or more importantly, is it true?


-------
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: 08:37 AM on July 9, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:37 AM on July 9, 2009 :
Whether we actually believe Evolution to be true or not, the TOE works


I have to agree that it is the best naturalistic explanation. The problem is whether it is the best explanation or more importantly, is it true?


All available physical evidence indicates that God uses Evolution.

If your personal theology supersedes Him, that is your choice.



-------
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: 09:18 AM on July 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have to agree that it is the best naturalistic explanation.
The only kind science deals with.
The problem is whether it is the best explanation
Best at what? Best at explaining and predicting? Yeah, the best so far. Best at letting you sleep at night? I've heard better.
or more importantly, is it true?
How do you test for "truth"?
So far it has passed every test. So assuming it's true isn't crazy.
Personally i don't care about the such things. A scientific theory only needs to work. There's no "truth". Quantum physics taught me that.






-------
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: 3:32 PM on July 9, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:53 AM on July 8, 2009 :
Molecular genetics are contradictory – use molecular genetics and you get a variety of contradictory trees of life.


No you don't. Through genome analysis you can revise trees of life previously done through morphology. Once all the evidence is in there is no contradiction.

If you want you can get some things to line up but you need to know what you are planning to achieve in order to only use the results that support your presupposition.


They line up because there is no other logical explanation, unless God is truly random about his creation and wants to confuse us. Either that or the devil has a lot more power than I thought.

Even if molecules did line up well between morphologically closely related types of creatures, all that would tell you is that they had similarities, not that they had a common ancestor;


That is just not what all the evidence suggests. Imagine that there are two populations that are similar and geographically separated by a lake that is widening. Then you find an organism's bones on one of the sides that resemble a primitive, in-between state of the two populations alive today and the remains date to around 10K years ago. From there the only logical conclusion is that the two populations had a common ancestor as recent as 10K years ago.

what’s to say they didn’t have a common designer?


There is no evidence for a designer, at least one that doesn't use evolution anyway. It's like asking why can't the sun get it's energy from magical unicorns dueling in the core of the sun releasing energy equivalent of that if the sun was using nuclear fusion of H into He. There is just no reason to think that.

The fossil record only tells you that lots of things died all over the world.


It also says where and when they died, and with skeletal structure we have a basic morphology of the organism that died.

You know that frogs only bring forth frogs today, why believe that frogs were producing pre-reptiles long ago and far away. If you think they were, it is not because the fossil record told you so, it is because you believe it and so you see it in dead bones. It’s imaginative, not evidential; philosophical not scientific.


No one who understands evolution would think that frogs produced pre-reptiles, and it is a straw-man argument.

We know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old with the standard starting point of life at 3.8 billion years ago.


Evolutionists think so based on radioactive decay rates measured in the present which fortunately gives them long age dates for rocks which gives them more reason to believe what they want to believe and that is that evolution happened and had time to happen.


Why do you think that all the dating supports the claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? I assmume you don't think it is because it may possibly be correct.

([evolution] needs lots of time, so they ignore all the other age indicators on the earth and in the sky).


What other indicators on the earth and sky?

We know that evolution is a fact,


Micro evolution is a fact


No, evolution is a fact, the end. How far you are willing to use that fact to explain evidence differs from the scientific community.

macro evolution is an extrapolation into the unknown, a philosophical necessity required if everything alive is to have a natural explanation.


There is no difference from micro to macro. Unless you can show us something other than "we have never observed macro evolution therefore it cannot happen", you have no evidence to support that claim.

Consensus never decided truth. Consensus has often been wrong.


True, but the scientific consensus holds only people that have studied and made careers out of studying the natural world through a method that had proven very very useful.

If you start with a philosophical naturalism as your belief system then single celled organisms just have to evolved from lifeless chemicals.


No one who knows what they're talking about says lifeless chemicals evolved into life. If you want you can start a thread on abiogenesis. Many scientists are religious and do not hold a naturalistic world view, which attests to the fact that evolution isn't just a hypothesis based only on naturalism.

You can believe it out of necessity to get your story started but you don’t know if it is even possible. Origin of life out of chemicals has many unresolved problems that I doubt will ever be resolved. Even if you had all the parts for a single cell, who would organize them into life and what makes organization of parts alive? What is life?


Do some real research on what abiogenesis has done. You have some misconceptions on what science really says about the first life forms. For starters we have produced the pyrimidines of RNA naturally in the lab. We have shown that pre-biotic earth conditions spontaneously form vesicles that can store amino acids and link them together ect ect. While it is far off from creating life, it in no way ousts the idea that life was created supernaturally.

We have never observed it. Change appears to have limits.


What are these limits?

If we believe it, we believe it despite the lack of evidence not because we have any evidence that it is possible. Science versus philosophy. Observable science tells me it isn’t happening today. Naturalistic philosophy tells you that it did happen long ago and far away.


From everything you have said you really like straw-men arguments or you really don't know what the modern theory of evolution says.

P.S. What is a kind, and how do you tell?


Some people seem to think that genus amounts to kind. I think we can identify a kind pretty much by looking at it and saying that’s a frog, that’s a finch kind etc.


I understand what you are saying, and it make sense if you believe in kinds. It is not a very rigorous definition, and there is a lot of wiggle room. It seems that most of it would be subjective, and you could change the definition (as creations continuously do) to fit whatever evidence they need it to fit.

Variation appears to be programmed into the genes for adaptation to different situations.


This is what I think you would call micro evolution.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:56 PM on July 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer27
No you don't. Through genome analysis you can revise trees of life previously done through morphology. Once all the evidence is in there is no contradiction.


So if you’re revising trees of life, does that not mean you are changing them?
Does that mean morphological comparisons were wrong? How do we know that genetics overrides morphology? How do we know that genetic similarities are due to evolution? What if they are like a common recipe for common parts from a common intelligent designer? Why is that possibility excluded? What if it is true and the belief that one evolved into another is not true? Why is only one possibility allowed?
Are people scared of the intelligent designer that He has been written out of the equation at the outset? It is no good saying that only naturalistic explanations are allowed in science. If that is so then science should stay away from guessing about origins because they cannot apply their scientific methods to origins science.

They line up because there is no other logical explanation, unless God is truly random about his creation and wants to confuse us. Either that or the devil has a lot more power than I thought.

You are not making a lot of sense here.
That is just not what all the evidence suggests. Imagine that there are two populations that are similar and geographically separated by a lake that is widening. Then you find an organism's bones on one of the sides that resemble a primitive, in-between state of the two populations alive today and the remains date to around 10K years ago. From there the only logical conclusion is that the two populations had a common ancestor as recent as 10K years ago.

It depends how inbetween we are talking about. If it is something like archaeopteryx between reptiles and birds, I’d say the other possibility is that it is probably a bird because it has fully formed wings not something between scales and wings. If it is different types of finches that you are finding then the conclusion is logical, yes because we know that minor variation is possible. As for the 10K date I’d say look at all the assumptions in radiometric dating and keep an open mind on that one.

There is no evidence for a designer, at least one that doesn't use evolution anyway.


There is no evidence that naturalistic mechanisms made life. For evidence of a designer, look to the design. It is an effect of the unseen - like gravity.

. It's like asking why can't the sun get it's energy from magical unicorns dueling in the core of the sun releasing energy equivalent of that if the sun was using nuclear fusion of H into He.


Science can only discuss the actual elements not their cause which is why evolution of stars and planets should also be avoided if God is to be avoided –or we can compare and contrast both possibilities against the evidence if we want to discuss origins. Also we can really only have two possibilities – everything was created OR everything evolved naturally.
Science really can see design but they can’t see the designer, they can see the stars and planets but they can’t see them forming naturally - so who or what the designer was would be a theological discussion not a scientific one and you could throw your magical unicorns out on the table for consideration in that theological discussion.

It also says where and when they died, and with skeletal structure we have a basic morphology of the organism that died.


No it says where they were buried. Since they are found in sedimentary rock, we know they are waterborne deposits so they may have died before and at another place from where their final resting place is. As for ‘when’ I suspect you would be talking about radiometric dating as being the method of dating in which case, don’t forget all the assumptions there.

No one who understands evolution would think that frogs produced pre-reptiles, and it is a straw-man argument.


Well perhaps I simplify too much but you do believe that an amphibian slowly turned into a reptile don’t you?

Why do you think that all the dating supports the claim that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? I assmume you don't think it is because it may possibly be correct.


Only radiometric dating supports that kind of claim. There are lots of other dating methods but evolutionists prefer radiometric dating to the exclusion of all else because it is the one that supports long ages which is required if evolution is to be even vaguely feasible. If they want naturalistic explanations, it’s the only way to go!

What other indicators on the earth and sky?


Amount of helium in the atmosphere. Short term comets. Radiocarbon in fossil record. Supernova remnants. Earth’s magnetic field. Salt in the dead sea. Sand in the Sahara. Helium in zircon crystals. World population. Spiralled galaxies. Sodium in the oceans. Actually so many different methods but they don’t work for evolutionists like radiometric dating does.
If you use anything but radiometric dating, you’d think that there wasn’t enough time for evolution to have happened and then what would become of your entirely naturalistic explanation for life?

We know that evolution is a fact,
We know that evolution is a fact,
No, evolution is a fact, the end.


Sorry, not the end. I’ll show you micro evolution occurring. You show me macroevolution occurring, then it’ll be the end. Until you can do more than just assume it, it remains theoretical.

There is no difference from micro to macro.


According to whom is there no difference? We say there is, you say there isn’t. You can tell us your theories but it remains a theory in need of some evidential support.

Unless you can show us something other than "we have never observed macro evolution therefore it cannot happen", you have no evidence to support that claim.


You are being illogical. Think about what you are saying and apply it to one of our claims. You say ‘we have never seen God and therefore he doesn’t exist’ –but you have no evidence to support that claim.
It depends where you apply that logic whether it is going to work for you –but this is getting somewhat convoluted.

True, but the scientific consensus holds only people that have studied and made careers out of studying the natural world through a method that had proven very very useful.


Consensus sounds very much like ‘not enough evidence to be convincing on its own merit therefore needing the support of the opinion of dogmatic naturalists’.

Many scientists are religious and do not hold a naturalistic world view, which attests to the fact that evolution isn't just a hypothesis based only on naturalism.


But evolution is a purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. If they are religious, then presumably they believe in a creator of life in which case they either go with deism (a distant first cause) and evolution or with theism (an intimately involved God) and creation. You can also make a religion out of naturalism –all you have to do is be dogmatic and insist that natural law is all there is capable of doing the job - and there you have your religious belief.

For starters we have produced the pyrimidines of RNA naturally in the lab.


‘Naturally’ and ‘in the lab’ are two very different things. ‘In the lab.’ is otherwise known as intelligent design because the conditions that allow their formation are carefully controlled, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible. Also a pyramidine of RNA is as far from life as the letters ABC and D are from the works of Shakespeare. It is much the same as the distance between Urey Miller’s amino-acids and the formation of functional proteins. Just because you can make parts of something in the lab does not mean that the parts are going to arrange thenselves naturally without intelligence and organization.

We have shown that pre-biotic earth conditions spontaneously form vesicles that can store amino acids and link them together


Which prebiotic earth conditions are you talking about. The real ones or the reducing atmosphere that allows amino-acids to link together? Do these prebiotic conditions allow vesicles AND amino-acids to form and what do you want to do about the R and L stereotypes of amino-acids. Who or what natural method  is going to do the separating?
The problem with evolutionists is that they ignore the many problems while all the time keeping the big theoretical picture as the only possibility.

No one who knows what they're talking about says lifeless chemicals evolved into life.


Well then what exactly do they call the basic units that got together to form life?
Please explain.

What are these limits?

The ones we have ‘observed’.
From everything you have said you really like straw-men arguments or you really don't know what the modern theory of evolution says.


Or you are not understanding the philosophical presumption of naturalism that drives it.

Variation appears to be programmed into the genes for adaptation to different situations.

This is what I think you would call micro evolution.


Yes.





-------
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: 06:27 AM on July 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:27 AM on July 11, 2009 :
Only radiometric dating supports that kind of claim. There are lots of other dating methods but evolutionists prefer radiometric dating to the exclusion of all else because it is the one that supports long ages which is required if evolution is to be even vaguely feasible. If they want naturalistic explanations, it’s the only way to go!


But the age of the earth can trivially be put far out of the YEC range simply by counting ice layers or coral layers.  Tree rings are less trival, but they can take it to 45,000 years.

What other indicators on the earth and sky?


Amount of helium in the atmosphere. Short term comets. Radiocarbon in fossil record. Supernova remnants. Earth’s magnetic field. Salt in the dead sea. Sand in the Sahara. Helium in zircon crystals. World population. Spiralled galaxies. Sodium in the oceans. Actually so many different methods but they don’t work for evolutionists like radiometric dating does.


Care to discuss any of those in detail?



-------
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: 09:37 AM on July 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:27 AM on July 11, 2009 :

For starters we have produced the pyrimidines of RNA naturally in the lab.


‘Naturally’ and ‘in the lab’ are two very different things. ‘In the lab.’ is otherwise known as intelligent design because the conditions that allow their formation are carefully controlled, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible.
 

Producing it in the lab was just confirmation of the processes that formed it naturally.  It is found in meteorites along with a whole host of other organic material.

The stuff of life falls from the skies.  Dust if you like.

Murchison meteorite





-------
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: 11:25 AM on July 11, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Amount of helium in the atmosphere. Short term comets. Radiocarbon in fossil record. Supernova remnants. Earth’s magnetic field. Salt in the dead sea. Sand in the Sahara. Helium in zircon crystals. World population. Spiralled galaxies. Sodium in the oceans. Actually so many different methods but they don’t work for evolutionists like radiometric dating does.


Care to discuss any of those in detail?




I second that.

(Edited by Fencer27 7/11/2009 at 9:31 PM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 9:30 PM on July 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:27 AM on July 11, 2009 :

Science really can see design but they can’t see the designer, they can see the stars and planets but they can’t see them forming naturally


Wrong yet again. . .




-------
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: 10:29 PM on July 11, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science really can see design but they can’t see the designer, they can see the stars and planets but they can’t see them forming naturally

Wait a minute, is Lester claiming the stars and planets formed magically????  You've got to be kidding me!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:52 AM on July 12, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:27 AM on July 11, 2009 :
So if you’re revising trees of life, does that not mean you are changing them?


They're changed, but it's not detrimental to evolution, they're just revised as new evidence comes in.  

Does that mean morphological comparisons were wrong? How do we know that genetics overrides morphology?


I think you are trying to oversimplify how real scientists come up with trees of life. Any tree of life must explain both, luckily morphology and genetics don't contradict each other when all the facts are present. This has been shown on another thread recently made.

How do we know that genetic similarities are due to evolution? What if they are like a common recipe for common parts from a common intelligent designer? Why is that possibility excluded? What if it is true and the belief that one evolved into another is not true? Why is only one possibility allowed?


There is no reason to think otherwise. There is no evidence to suggest that evolution is not responsible for similar genomes. We see this all the time with micro evolution, did God intelligently design every organism in a way that just so happens to co-inside with the explanation of micro-evolution?

Are people scared of the intelligent designer that He has been written out of the equation at the outset?


No one is scared of an intelligent designer, there is just nothing to suggest that there is.

It is no good saying that only naturalistic explanations are allowed in science. If that is so then science should stay away from guessing about origins because they cannot apply their scientific methods to origins science.


Why can't you use the scientific method to posit a likely scenario of how the first life came into being?

They line up because there is no other logical explanation, unless God is truly random about his creation and wants to confuse us. Either that or the devil has a lot more power than I thought.

You are not making a lot of sense here.


Everything that we find co-insides with the explanation given by the theory of evolution. So if evolution is not correct than either God wants to confuse us or the devil has a lot more power than God.

That is just not what all the evidence suggests. Imagine that there are two populations that are similar and geographically separated by a lake that is widening...

It depends how inbetween we are talking about. If it is something like archaeopteryx...


At least try to understand evolution. 10K years isn't enough time for major changes like that.

If it is different types of finches that you are finding then the conclusion is logical, yes because we know that minor variation is possible.


Would it still be logical for you if the analysis came back and said it was a different species and the two populations alive today were different species?

As for the 10K date I’d say look at all the assumptions in radiometric dating and keep an open mind on that one.


I was just making up a likely scenario based on what I know about biology and geology. Would you like it better if I said 5K years? Although 5K isn't long enough to insure speciation as much as 10K, it is still doable.

There is no evidence for a designer, at least one that doesn't use evolution anyway.


There is no evidence that naturalistic mechanisms made life. For evidence of a designer, look to the design. It is an effect of the unseen - like gravity.


First this is off topic, the OP is about what prevents micro to macro, not about the origins of life. If you want to discuss this in detail please make a new thread.

The only evidence of how life was created is natural. If God designed life, He, at the very least, used natural mechanisms to achieve that.

Science can only discuss the actual elements not their cause which is why evolution of stars and planets should also be avoided if God is to be avoided


Huh? Science is the study of the natural, and we have applied such a method when it comes to the stars. We know how stars are born, how they go through their life, and how they die. And we know how planets are formed. It is one of the more difficult sciences to study, but one with its own unique beauty.

or we can compare and contrast both possibilities against the evidence if we want to discuss origins.


If you want you can make a new thread and I'll be happy to participate.

Also we can really only have two possibilities – everything was created OR everything evolved naturally.


I don't think it is that black and white. I choose a middle ground.

Science really can see design but they can’t see the designer, they can see the stars and planets but they can’t see them forming naturally - so who or what the designer was would be a theological discussion not a scientific one and you could throw your magical unicorns out on the table for consideration in that theological discussion.


While we will never see a star or planet form from a nebula, we can tell how they form because we see many different stages of stars being born. And if there is a designer it would indeed be a theological or philosophical one because science doesn't need one to explain anything. In fact more questions would arise than answers.

No one who understands evolution would think that frogs produced pre-reptiles, and it is a straw-man argument.


Well perhaps I simplify too much but you do believe that an amphibian slowly turned into a reptile don’t you?


I don't know if I'm just being picky with your word choice but that is not how evolution works. A population of amphibians slowly evolved into reptiles over X amount of generations due to mutations natural selection.

Only radiometric dating supports that kind of claim. There are lots of other dating methods but evolutionists prefer radiometric dating to the exclusion of all else because it is the one that supports long ages which is required if evolution is to be even vaguely feasible. If they want naturalistic explanations, it’s the only way to go!


If you find a rock, pile of bones ect ect. What method would you use to to determine how old it is?

Not to mention cosmic background radiation has been observed and analyzed to the beginning of the universe to around 13.7 billion years ago. That's one example not using radiometric dating to support an old universe. Another obvious example as Apoapsis has already said is tree rings dating way beyond 6K years.

If you use anything but radiometric dating, you’d think that there wasn’t enough time for evolution to have happened and then what would become of your entirely naturalistic explanation for life?


Just a little anecdote, when evolution was first proposed there really was a time problem. At the time they thought that the sun got its energy through chemical burning, which means that the Earth couldn't have been old enough for evolution to take place. Luckily we learned that the sun does not get its energy from chemical burning but through fusion, giving the Earth enough time for evolution. Believe it or not the scientific community didn't embrace evolution on site. But over time, as the facts and evidence came in, evolution won as the best explanation for the diversity of life.

Sorry, not the end. I’ll show you micro evolution occurring. You show me macroevolution occurring, then it’ll be the end. Until you can do more than just assume it, it remains theoretical.


By definition macro evolution is essentially speciation which has been observed in both the lab and in natural settings. So we have observed macro evolution. The problem is that you define macro evolution as changes in kinds, but you cannot give a clear definition of kinds. Your position is not scientific, but philosophical, that is why no matter how much evidence we put in your face you will always reject macro evolution. You are projecting the faults of creation onto evolution and refuse to entertain the option that you are wrong.

There is no difference from micro to macro.


According to whom is there no difference? We say there is, you say there isn’t. You can tell us your theories but it remains a theory in need of some evidential support.


The mechanism by which micro and macro are done is the same. The fact is as science has learned more and proven more, creationists have accepted more and more of evolutionary theory to the point where you (creationists) have essentially become a God of the gaps camp. And those gaps are becoming ever increasingly smaller.

You are being illogical. Think about what you are saying and apply it to one of our claims. You say ‘we have never seen God and therefore he doesn’t exist’ –but you have no evidence to support that claim.


You must have me confused with some one else. I'm a Christian! I fundamentally believe (oversimplified) that you cannot use science to understand religion and you cannot use religion to understand science. Both are separate and must be treated as so.

It depends where you apply that logic whether it is going to work for you –but this is getting somewhat convoluted.


Agreed, we can drop this section or continue, I defer to you.

Consensus sounds very much like ‘not enough evidence to be convincing on its own merit therefore needing the support of the opinion of dogmatic naturalists’.


None of us are experts in science or have any professional training or experience in any field as far as I know. Any science is not a cake walk, so an appeal to authority is not saying the evidence cannot stand on its own. But rather, the evidence is very complex and time consuming to the point where none of us will understand it all, but those who do understand it all agree that evolution works and has happen, is happening and will happen. But if you think you know better than some of the most intelligent and educated individuals of our time who have made professional careers studying this, than go right ahead.

But evolution is a purely naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.


That would be abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life.

If they are religious, then presumably they believe in a creator of life in which case they either go with deism (a distant first cause) and evolution or with theism (an intimately involved God) and creation.


For those that are religious I think that sums it up.

You can also make a religion out of naturalism –all you have to do is be dogmatic and insist that natural law is all there is capable of doing the job - and there you have your religious belief.


It would be a belief system yes, but a religion, no. A religion has to have rituals, naturalism has none. It would be like saying the republican party is a religion. Or you could go all the way back to the origins of the word religion, which would be Rome with the word being religio/religare meaning to tie or bind. So loosely any belief system or stance that can tie or bind you to anything can be a religion.

‘Naturally’ and ‘in the lab’ are two very different things. ‘In the lab.’ is otherwise known as intelligent design because the conditions that allow their formation are carefully controlled, otherwise it wouldn’t be possible.


How is it intelligent design? They just threw a bunch of chemicals we think were in pre-biotic Earth with likely conditions at the time and put them together. As far as we know this is a likely scenario of what could have happened in that time. The world is a big place, and billions of reactions could have been happening every second, whose to say that this couldn't have happened a few times.

Also a pyramidine of RNA is as far from life as the letters ABC and D are from the works of Shakespeare.


True, but life didn't start off as Shakespeare. Life was much simpler back then compared to today. This is nothing more than a straw-man.

It is much the same as the distance between Urey Miller’s amino-acids and the formation of functional proteins. Just because you can make parts of something in the lab does not mean that the parts are going to arrange thenselves naturally without intelligence and organization.


Life is not a simple process to create from non-life. Should we dismiss that people can walk a thousand miles only because we have made one step so far? And every step we take brings us closer and closer to a scenario that works for abiogenesis.

We have shown that pre-biotic earth conditions spontaneously form vesicles that can store amino acids and link them together


Which prebiotic earth conditions are you talking about. The real ones or the reducing atmosphere that allows amino-acids to link together? Do these prebiotic conditions allow vesicles AND amino-acids to form and what do you want to do about the R and L stereotypes of amino-acids. Who or what natural method  is going to do the separating?


It's been a while since I found it, so I don't remember any of the specifics. Although I read somewhere recently where they addressed the R and L problem and they found a solution, I'll try to find it and post it in the next few days.

The problem with evolutionists is that they ignore the many problems while all the time keeping the big theoretical picture as the only possibility.


In many lay-men articles for these kinds of things scientists seem very sure, and it sounds a lot more solid than what it sounds like in the actual peer review scientific literature. While if you were to go and read what they are really saying to their peers, it would seem like they are unsure of many things, none of them have a problem with the general theory of evolution or natural selection.

Well then what exactly do they call the basic units that got together to form life?
Please explain.


Evolution happens after the first life is already present. Abiogenesis has to do with the formation of life, if you are really interested look up some of the current hypotheses and see what people who know a lot more than me have to say about it.

What are these limits?

The ones we have ‘observed’.


But we haven't observed any 'limits' like that though.

From everything you have said you really like straw-men arguments or you really don't know what the modern theory of evolution says.


Or you are not understanding the philosophical presumption of naturalism that drives it.


Science is not bias one way or another on any religion or philosophy. It all has to do with evidence, and you have yet to show any evidence to support that macro evolution is invalid.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:43 AM on July 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:52 AM on July 12, 2009 :
Science really can see design but they can’t see the designer, they can see the stars and planets but they can’t see them forming naturally

Wait a minute, is Lester claiming the stars and planets formed magically????  You've got to be kidding me!  


It's statements such as the one Lester makes above that shows he has no clue what he is talking about.  As Apoapsis Hubble picture of the EGGs in the Eagle Nebula points out, astronomers DO see evidence of star AND planetary formation happening today.  It doesn't happen in 6 days as Lester thinks it must, but we do see it happening.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:14 PM on July 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
But the age of the earth can trivially be put far out of the YEC range simply by counting ice layers or coral layers.


Seems to me ice layers certainly can’t be counted upon as far as accuracy goes.
In 1992, planes abandoned on a glacier in 1942 en route to a bombing mission in Germany, were finally uncovered after 12 years of searching. One, a P38 Lightning was uncovered from underneath 250 feet of solid ice bringing the standard interpretation of ice cores into question, cores that supposedly show hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation. It shows clearly that a whole lot less time is required to form polar ice caps than was previously thought.
I’m afraid I know nothing (as yet) of coral layers so maybe you could enlighten me on your interpretation….

Care to discuss any of those in detail?


Sure, why not.

Producing it in the lab was just confirmation of the processes that formed it naturally.  


Generally not. You usually have to keep everything that might otherwise react out of the way – unnatural lab. conditions are required. Apart from that, getting pyramidines is not good enough, you have to get the sugars and phosphates in the correct places as well which thickens the plot immensely.
It is much like the production of amino-acids is a chemical procedure but putting them together into an order that makes something functional is a whole other ball game.

Wait a minute, is Lester claiming the stars and planets formed magically????


Well I have a real hard time imagining how these big bang (hypothetical) materials managed to pull together while accelerating in all different directions getting further and further apart. I don’t understand how gases are compressed until they become solid planets and I wonder why some moons rotate in one direction while others rotate in the opposite direction from the same big bang. How about you explain these things to me starting with where the material came from that formed these things and please keep it as simple as possible because I am clearly too stupid to extend my imagination for this particular subject. Thanks.

Answer to Fencer 27

Quote from Lester10 at 06:27 AM on July 11, 2009 :
So if you’re revising trees of life, does that not mean you are changing them?
They're changed, but it's not detrimental to evolution, they're just revised as new evidence comes in.


But if genetic evidence revises (changes) what was decided from morphological evidence, then morphology does not mean what we thought it did and we still don’t know whether the similarities point to a common ancestor rather than to a common designer. We can’t see what happened so how can we decide the cause of the pattern?

What if it is true and the belief that one evolved into another is not true? Why is only one possibility allowed?
There is no reason to think otherwise. There is no evidence to suggest that evolution is not responsible for similar genomes.


I understand that you prefer that explanation but that does not make it more ‘scientific’ in the absence of supporting evidence. We have no reason to believe that micro can lead to macro naturally and mutations don’t appear to strongly support the contention (or even weakly for that matter). What we need is not your  ‘evidence to suggest that evolution is not responsible’, we need evidence to suggest that evolution is responsible otherwise your preferred cause is more invisible than the designer who at least leaves a design as evidence of his existance.

did God intelligently design every organism in a way that just so happens to co-inside with the explanation of micro-evolution?


Well it certainly seems reasonable to me that he designed them with programmed DNA that allows them to adapt to different circumstances for their survival, that is what they evidently do which is why variation within the kind seems to be something that we can all agree on.

No one is scared of an intelligent designer, there is just nothing to suggest that there is.


Actually there is nothing to suggest that the intricacy of design and vast variety of organisms arose with apparent design but no designer. Why should everything be explained by natural law except by prejudice? It’s like having a car and needing to explain its presence without a designer  The parts all work together but are unlikely to be found in the same area and conveniently end up attached in all the right places. The arrangement of organisms is not all chemistry.Why would a designer be such an unlikely suggestion that it is not allowed as a proposition? What counts a designer out?

Why can't you use the scientific method to posit a likely scenario of how the first life came into being?


You can but why can’t you posit a creator as a necessary cause? If there’s only one possibility then you don’t even need evidence, you’re right by default and have to ignore everything that doesn’t support your dogma.

At least try to understand evolution. 10K years isn't enough time for major changes like that.


Not if they evolved by natural means, no.

The only evidence of how life was created is natural. If God designed life, He, at the very least, used natural mechanisms to achieve that.


That’s the only alternative you’re willing to accept but the evidence doesn’t show that natural mechanisms created the obvious design in living things. We can explain say micro change in finch beaks via natural means but not the arrival of the finch. So it seems God may leave natural mechanisms causing minor change but he didn’t need to use natural means to create living things in the first place and there is no evidence for that.

Everything that we find co-insides with the explanation given by the theory of evolution.


Not true, but that is the only way ‘science’ is prepared to attempt to explain it –that is not the same as how it actually happened. It is a philosophical choice they’ve made, not a logical or essential one.

Huh? Science is the study of the natural, and we have applied such a method when it comes to the stars. We know how stars are born, how they go through their life, and how they die. And we know how planets are formed.


Actually science can observe what is now in existence and then, using their philosophical choice that only natural mechanisms are ALLOWED to be used to explain the arrival of the stars and the planets, they proceed to invent a plausible story which you then believe because you also think that you have no choice but to invent plausible natural scenarios .

I don't think it is that black and white. I choose a middle ground.


Well it is nice to choose but don’t you see that your choice has nothing to do with what is true, it is just your particular choice. That is what science has done. They choose to disallow the supernatural and then they extend the rules of science so that now not only are you only allowed to explain things via natural mechanisms but you are only allowed to believe that it all happened via natural mechanisms.
Is the truth not important? The middle ground you have chosen is nice and it may be true but it also may not be and the truth does not depend on what you choose to believe.

And if there is a designer it would indeed be a theological or philosophical one because science doesn't need one to explain anything. In fact more questions would arise than answers.


The choice of which God would be a theological one but the question of whether there was one or not is a model that is opposed to the naturalistic model for the origin of life. Science doesn’t need to explain it but then they mustn’t choose to enforce their choice of how it happened onto the evidence, and spend so much time and effort forcing the whole world to believe that their personal choice and plausible mechanisms is the correct one. Why don’t they stick to the observable repeatable science and stop attempting to enforce this naturalistic religion on the world under the guise of ‘science’.?

A population of amphibians slowly evolved into reptiles over X amount of generations due to mutations natural selection.


Not according to the evidence, only according to the plausible story based on a belief that naturalism is a fact not a theory.

If you find a rock, pile of bones ect ect. What method would you use to to determine how old it is?


First I’d use C14 dating on the bones and if I found C14 I’d know that they had to be less than ~60 000 years old. I definitely wouldn’t use the geological column after that though because there are way too many problems with that apart from the obvious problem that the dates were decided before radiometric dating even came into being. I’d know that there are assumptions being used in C14 dating as well so I wouldn’t imagine that date to be absolute either just a general indication –a ballpark figure. I’d never use radiometric dating. I’m afraid dating is a very tricky business when there are no historical records. As for the rocks, forget the geological column dates, they are based upon an imaginary naturalistic assumption of evolution over millions of years. Radiometric dating is based on many assumptions that appear to be invalid if it is to be judged by dating of things where age is known.

Not to mention cosmic background radiation has been observed and analyzed to the beginning of the universe to around 13.7 billion years ago.


I’d certainly look into all the assumptions used there. Nobody was there and you can bet your bottom dollar lots of things have been assumed in whatever technique is used. Obviously they like the date they got so they have accepted it. That again is a philosophical choice.

Believe it or not the scientific community didn't embrace evolution on site. But over time, as the facts and evidence came in, evolution won as the best explanation for the diversity of life.


Analysis of the so-called geological column is based on the principle of uniformatarianism –a principle which now appears, for obvious catastrophic reasons, to be going out of vogue. If uniformatarianism is incorrect then so is the entire guestimate of the geological column. Assumptions aplenty again.

By definition macro evolution is essentially speciation which has been observed in both the lab and in natural settings. So we have observed macro evolution. The problem is that you define macro evolution as changes in kinds, but you cannot give a clear definition of kinds. Your position is not scientific, but philosophical, that is why no matter how much evidence we put in your face you will always reject macro evolution.


No, you see my position allows for two possible positions –the world was created or the world created itself. That then extends to the choice of - the original kinds were created by God or the kinds evolved by natural processes. I base my decision on the choice that the evidence best fits. Your choice is based on an assumption of naturalism. You have no choice once you assume naturalism. That is why I say your choice is a philisophical one –you believe it has to be natural and that’s that. So the evidence doesn’t matter.

If you count speciation as macro-evolution then you’re basically saying that if a finch doesn’t reproduce with another finch then macro-evolution has happened in that speciation has happened. It’s always going to be easy and obvious to see the difference between speciation and macro-evolution –unless you close your eyes and refuse to see the difference, in the interests of philosophy.

The mechanism by which micro and macro are done is the same.


No, maybe that is where we are not seeing eye to eye. We say that variation happens but all the genetic variation was already built/encoded into the genome of the ‘kind’ (or species).
Where change occurs due to mutation,that was not built into the ‘kind’ but is a defect in a previously perfect genetically programmed code and is usually not a good thing. It may however be an advantage in certain environments, for example in antibiotic resistance of bacteria where an antibiotic may no longer be converted into a poison due to the loss of a protein that used to be coded for.The mechanism proposed for macro evolution is the same proposed by naturalists for microevolution –that is mutation and natural selection.

The fact is as science has learned more and proven more, creationists have accepted more and more of evolutionary theory to the point where you (creationists) have essentially become a God of the gaps camp. And those gaps are becoming ever increasingly smaller.


That is old folklore. (ie. an old evolutionist’s ‘refute refute’ story leaving the poor stupid creationist with no option but to fold in defeat –don’t believe it.)

You must have me confused with some one else. I'm a Christian! I fundamentally believe (oversimplified) that you cannot use science to understand religion and you cannot use religion to understand science. Both are separate and must be treated as so.


Well I’m sorry but the position of the theistic evolutionist is the most disturbed of all. Evolutionists know it, but they’re happy to have you on board to show other Christians that it is perfectly acceptable and ‘scientific’ to believe in God and evolution at the same time. The two positions are completely antagonistic in actual fact so I don’t believe that you have thought it through very carefully but I’d be interested to hear more.
For a start, how does one separate one’s belief system and the real world? The two are at odds in your case so you have to have a complete case of cognitive dissonance. It’s like saying that science is truth and your faith is myth –that is just exactly what non-Christian evolutionists think about Christianity and God.

, but those who do understand it all agree that evolution works and has happen, is happening and will happen.


Either nobody understands it all –as in nobody - or we are all fundamentally capable of examining the evidence and coming to conclusions about what the evidence shows. Scientists have very narrow fields in which they work –my father for example works with diatoms, he’s also well versed in soybeans and a few other botanical entities. He doesn’t pretend to be a general science expert but he is capable of examining the evidence that is put to him. The same applies to all those rabid evolutionists out there that pretend they are so fully informed in all fields that they can see everything pointing straight to evolution –no, that’s their preference and usually, funnily enough, if you ask them which is their best evidence for evolution, they will say somebody else’s field (one that they don’t know as much about). It’s like Ernst Mayr, evolutionist, specialist in invertebrates I believe, who points to ape to man evidences as the best example for evolution. 95% of the fossil record is marine life. The fossil record is best where he is most informed and he chooses a field where there is a billiard table full of fragments of bone being used as evidence for evolution. Strange that. As an experiment, choose a few scientists that don’t know what you’re doing and ask them what they find most convincing about evolution; what is their best proof. When they tell you, ask yourself, is this that guy’s field that he specializes in or not - and usually you will see that his field of expertise does not convince him which is why he is only convinced about evolution in fields in which he is essentially a layperson. He’ll believe it in his field but his best evidence generally lies elsewhere.

If they are religious, then presumably they believe in a creator of life in which case they either go with deism (a distant first cause) and evolution or with theism (an intimately involved God) and creation.
For those that are religious I think that sums it up.


The religion of theistic evolutionists is essentially deism not theism. They have a different god to the Christians.

How is it intelligent design? They just threw a bunch of chemicals we think were in pre-biotic Earth with likely conditions at the time and put them together.


No they didn’t –they had to exclude oxygen on principle and assume it wasn’t present because life could never have originated in the presence of oxygen. They also had to have an artificial trap mechanism to save the products else they would have been destroyed as fast as they formed by the toxic byproducts of the experiment. There is intelligent design written all over that experiment and then they only got amino-acids which is as far away from life as letters of the alphabet are from the works of Shakespeare. You need somebody to arrange them in a meaningful way with intelligence before you get life.

True, but life didn't start off as Shakespeare. Life was much simpler back then compared to today. This is nothing more than a straw-man.


That’s the story. Not even unicellular life is simple and who says that it is necessarily true that it started unicellular and increased in complexity. That’s the essence of the naturalistic story, most likely not the real story of life on this planet. Even the Cambrian has complex life forms with no sign of where they came from.

Life is not a simple process to create from non-life. Should we dismiss that people can walk a thousand miles only because we have made one step so far? And every step we take brings us closer and closer to a scenario that works for abiogenesis.


That’s good in principle but it’s no good forcing the story into the box of naturalism and then saying that that is the only way it could have happened and the only box it could possibly fit into. That’s the objection.

In many lay-men articles for these kinds of things scientists seem very sure, and it sounds a lot more solid than what it sounds like in the actual peer review scientific literature.


I’ve heard that before but I believe their funding depends on making a good case, sometimes better than it actually is. Also they like the lay people to be convinced by their plausible scenarios. It’s like a confidence trick – not all scientists do it though.

But we haven't observed any 'limits' like that though.


We have actually – we are however led to believe that there are no limits because evolution has happened. But has it? Dogs will only ever be dogs and hippos will remain hippos, everyone actually knows that inside themselves so what they believe about evolution conflicts with what they know to be true.

Science is not bias one way or another on any religion or philosophy. It all has to do with evidence, and you have yet to show any evidence to support that macro evolution is invalid.



They have only one possibility that is allowed, nature or nothing –it is their chosen philosophy and it precedes the evidence.


   



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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:33 AM on July 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:33 AM on July 14, 2009 :
Seems to me ice layers certainly can’t be counted upon as far as accuracy goes.


Well, it obviously depends on how much accuracy you need.  For many applications, 5% is plenty.

In 1992, planes abandoned on a glacier in 1942 en route to a bombing mission in Germany, were finally uncovered after 12 years of searching. One, a P38 Lightning was uncovered from underneath 250 feet of solid ice


Your source is not accurate, the P38s were being ferried to England, they were not on a bombing mission.

bringing the standard interpretation of ice cores into question, cores that supposedly show hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation. It shows clearly that a whole lot less time is required to form polar ice caps than was previously thought.


Your source is guilty of an error of uniformitarian thinking, do you think the snowfall rate is equal over all parts of Greenland?  I've personally spent a lot of time flying over there surveying the ice sheet, and I can assure you that the snowfall on the east coast is much heavier.  You also seem to be under the impression that age is measured by only thickness.  

In reality, a number of factors give a yearly signature to an ice layer, melting and dust during the summer, differing chemistry over the seasons, all give measurable and visible signals.  A non-visible signal is the change in O16/O18 ratio.  The heavier O18 in a water molecule needs warmer temperatures to evaporate, so the ratio changes from winter to summer, giving a clear signal.

A favorite signal is sulfates.  These give nice signals that indicate volcanic eruptions.  A good example is the eruption of Toba eruptions.  The following is a table of estimated dates from a wide variety of methods.  Apologies in advance for the formatting.

Quaternary Science Reviews 21 (2002) 1593–1609
Limited global change due to the largest known Quaternary eruption, Toba ~74 kyr BP?
C. Oppenheimer
Published age determinations for the YTT
Location                   Material           Age (kyr BP)         Technique         Reference
Malaysia      Ash (glass shards)      68+/-7        Fission-track          Chesner et al. (1991)
Greenland      Sulphate             71+/-5a            Ice core stratigraphy           Zielinski et al. (1996)
South China Sea      Foraminifera       71           18O/16O            stratigraphy            Huang et al. (2001)
Arabian Sea      Foraminifera          72.4–74.675               18O/16O stratigraphy         Schulz et al. (1998)
Samosir island      Ignimbrite (sanidine)        73+/-4                 Ar–Ar             Chesner et al. (1991)
Prapat      Pumice (sanidine)            74+/-3            K–Ar              Ninkovitch et al. (1978b)
Indian Ocean      Foraminifera           75            18O/16O             stratigraphy              Ninkovitch (1979)
Sigurapura      Ignimbrite (biotite)        75+/-12        K–Ar               Ninkovitch et al. (1978b)
Prapat           Quartz crystals         81+/-17           ESR             Wild et al. (1999)      

If you want to do your own research, the ice core data is on-line:
Greenland Summit Ice Cores CD-ROM

Side note, if you have to stand around on a sub-zero ice sheet all day, bunny boots are the only way to go.


(Edited by Apoapsis 7/14/2009 at 11:56 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: 11:45 PM on July 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:33 AM on July 14, 2009 :
You must have me confused with some one else. I'm a Christian! I fundamentally believe (oversimplified) that you cannot use science to understand religion and you cannot use religion to understand science. Both are separate and must be treated as so.


Well I’m sorry but the position of the theistic evolutionist is the most disturbed of all. Evolutionists know it, but they’re happy to have you on board to show other Christians that it is perfectly acceptable and ‘scientific’ to believe in God and evolution at the same time. The two positions are completely antagonistic in actual fact so I don’t believe that you have thought it through very carefully but I’d be interested to hear more.
For a start, how does one separate one’s belief system and the real world? The two are at odds in your case so you have to have a complete case of cognitive dissonance. It’s like saying that science is truth and your faith is myth –that is just exactly what non-Christian evolutionists think about Christianity and God.



Creation Science Commentary Creation Scientist???

What Should Christians Do?

    As Christians, we should all pray for the creation debate within the church.  As long as the untrue theory of young earth creationism is being spread, the church will suffer, and will continue to be mocked by those outside the church who see the young earth position for what it is.  It can all end with the acceptance of old earth belief, and we can start reaching the world for Christ, armed with the truth of creation.



Conclusion

     The bottom line…it is hard to understand how anyone can cling to something that is false, despite all the evidence to the contrary.  If you are seeking advice in a scientific field, don't listen only to the young earth scientists...also don't listen only to the old earth scientists.  Examine the facts and decide for yourself.

    Finally, consider this possibility.  Suppose that we did not have Genesis or the Bible.  When examining the rocks and stars, is it possible that any modern scientist without the Bible could claim scientifically that the earth was only 6,000 years old?  Such a conclusion is not supported by the evidence and is not possible.  God said in Romans 1:20 that the things of creation are "plainly understood."  When scientists examine creation, it plainly states that it is billions of years old.




-------
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: 2:47 PM on July 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As Christians, we should all pray for the creation debate within the church.  As long as the untrue theory of young earth creationism is being spread, the church will suffer, and will continue to be mocked by those outside the church who see the young earth position for what it is.


Well somebody doesn't have a clue about evidence and interpretations. This is an ignorant comment by somebody who hasn't really looked at the controversy in any depth and has decided to go with 'science' not realizing that 'science' has a different worldview from Christianity and that is responsible for the different interpretations.

It can all end with the acceptance of old earth belief


..in his dreams.

and we can start reaching the world for Christ, armed with the truth of creation.


The Truth is the Word of God and it doesn't need Christians who need to fit in, turning its clear words into other words to fit in with a secular view of history. Should we go out into the world explaining how the Bible can't be trusted and how a day actually means 100's of millions of years according to this man and that. Why don't we just update it and write a new Bible?Why bother with the Bible at all if we can make it say what we want it to say in keeping with atheist interpretations? It's called compromise and compromise is not always a good thing.

it is hard to understand how anyone can cling to something that is false, despite all the evidence to the contrary.


Well I agree -how can they cling to their compromising view despite all the clear evidence that the Bible can be trusted. Remember evidence doesn't interpret itself.

If you are seeking advice in a scientific field, don't listen only to the young earth scientists...also don't listen only to the old earth scientists.  Examine the facts and decide for yourself.


Finally we have some sense being spoken. I don't think that that is his point though. I pretty much smell a rat. He is telling people listening to YEC's to listen to the other old earth interpretation as well . As for Christians who have accepted the old earth view, I'm sure he'd prefer that they stuck with that and shut their eyes to the YEC interpretation. He's just trying to sound fair.

When examining the rocks and stars, is it possible that any modern scientist without the Bible could claim scientifically that the earth was only 6,000 years old?


How does a very old rock look? Should we only look at the rocks when we are trying to determine the age of the earth? Without the Bible we could all believe in Darwin.

Such a conclusion is not supported by the evidence and is not possible.


It is and it is.

God said in Romans 1:20 that the things of creation are "plainly understood."  


Yes we can see that it has to have been created, rather than evolved with no intelligent planning. We have no excuse if we look at what has been made and imagine that it just happened due to selection of the 'best' mistakes (mutations).

When scientists examine creation, it plainly states that it is billions of years old.


He's got to be joking.






-------
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: 04:51 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perfect Lester, sidestep all the science discussion and whine that you have the only correct view.

Ignore the fact that other thoughtful Christians disagree with you.

Quote from Lester10 at 04:51 AM on July 16, 2009 :
As Christians, we should all pray for the creation debate within the church.  As long as the untrue theory of young earth creationism is being spread, the church will suffer, and will continue to be mocked by those outside the church who see the young earth position for what it is.


Well somebody doesn't have a clue about evidence and interpretations. This is an ignorant comment by somebody who hasn't really looked at the controversy in any depth and has decided to go with 'science' not realizing that 'science' has a different worldview from Christianity and that is responsible for the different interpretations.

It can all end with the acceptance of old earth belief


..in his dreams.

and we can start reaching the world for Christ, armed with the truth of creation.


The Truth is the Word of God and it doesn't need Christians who need to fit in, turning its clear words into other words to fit in with a secular view of history. Should we go out into the world explaining how the Bible can't be trusted and how a day actually means 100's of millions of years according to this man and that. Why don't we just update it and write a new Bible?Why bother with the Bible at all if we can make it say what we want it to say in keeping with atheist interpretations? It's called compromise and compromise is not always a good thing.

it is hard to understand how anyone can cling to something that is false, despite all the evidence to the contrary.


Well I agree -how can they cling to their compromising view despite all the clear evidence that the Bible can be trusted. Remember evidence doesn't interpret itself.

If you are seeking advice in a scientific field, don't listen only to the young earth scientists...also don't listen only to the old earth scientists.  Examine the facts and decide for yourself.


Finally we have some sense being spoken. I don't think that that is his point though. I pretty much smell a rat. He is telling people listening to YEC's to listen to the other old earth interpretation as well . As for Christians who have accepted the old earth view, I'm sure he'd prefer that they stuck with that and shut their eyes to the YEC interpretation. He's just trying to sound fair.

When examining the rocks and stars, is it possible that any modern scientist without the Bible could claim scientifically that the earth was only 6,000 years old?


How does a very old rock look? Should we only look at the rocks when we are trying to determine the age of the earth? Without the Bible we could all believe in Darwin.

Such a conclusion is not supported by the evidence and is not possible.


It is and it is.

God said in Romans 1:20 that the things of creation are "plainly understood."  


Yes we can see that it has to have been created, rather than evolved with no intelligent planning. We have no excuse if we look at what has been made and imagine that it just happened due to selection of the 'best' mistakes (mutations).

When scientists examine creation, it plainly states that it is billions of years old.


He's got to be joking.


No, he's not joking.

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:08 PM on July 13, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 09:46 AM on July 12, 2009 :
Let us all pray –thank you Evolution our designer and creator for all your wonderful providence! I told you it’s a religion and those pushing it are the holders of the new bible which is equivalent to the Latin that the Roman Catholics wanted to not translate so that the commoners could not understand so that they could stay in charge of all truth.
 

That sounds rather bitter.  You live in a time with the greatest access to information in history, with thousands and thousands of scientific papers at your fingertips.

Lanl arXiv for Physics


PubMed Central for biology

It’s happening again and now the foreign language of the new religion is the language of science. Sadly we are all too stupid to understand it and will thus have to leave the decision-making of the world in the hands of those few atheists and agnostics that do understand. They are the new priests and Darwin is their prophet.


It is a choice to remain scientifically illiterate.

Fortunately many Christian scientists have not made that choice.
American Scientific Affiliation



       The ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science.  Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position.  However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science.  Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems.  The ASA can and does oppose such deception.



A common issue for Christians is in fields where the scientific results appear to conflict with common ideas or deductions from the Bible. It is not unusual in those cases to find skepticism about the science itself. Being a skeptic in science isn't a matter of just saying "I don't believe it" or citing technobabble that dazzles the non-expert into thinking there is serious scientific debate. Legitimate  skepticism needs to go through scientific methodology as well. It needs to be published in peer-reviewed technical literature, corroborated by independent laboratories and accepted or addressed by the relevant technical community. It's a tall order but until those hurdles are cleared, the skepticism is merely a proposed idea.
Integrity in Science


You're showing why YEC is dying, it can't stand the light of scrutiny.


-------
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: 09:19 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ignore the fact that other thoughtful Christians disagree with you.


I don't ignore them, I argue with them just as I argue with you. I like laying out the evidence so that we can all have a look and discussing what we see.

You're showing why YEC is dying, it can't stand the light of scrutiny.


Actually YEC's love scrutiny and they are all for critical thinking. That's why we advocate putting the evidence critical of Darwin's theory in the school curriculum and discussing evidences for and against.
It's the evos that are desperately trying to keep it out.They know their pet theory can't withstand the scrutiny.



-------
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: 10:30 AM on July 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
Actually YEC's love scrutiny and they are all for critical thinking. That's why we advocate putting the evidence critical of Darwin's theory in the school curriculum and discussing evidences for and against.
It's the evos that are desperately trying to keep it out.They know their pet theory can't withstand the scrutiny.


I find it amazing that you can make such contradictary statements.  You blithely discount any evidence or argument that disputes your beliefs without providing credible counter arguments of your own.  And when you do quote outside sources they are of questionable repute.  Meanwhile you blindly and stubbornly insist that an alternative explanation, one without any scientific merit or foundation, be considered in the science classroom.

You are correct in one statement - that evos want to keep creationism out of the science class.  And they have good reason for this.  What you don't seem to understand is that Creationism is NOT a scientific theory.

You ignore any arguments from any field of science (not just TOE) that threatens your beliefs in a literal interpetation of the Bible.  Meanwhile, what evidence do you give that a literal interpetation of the Bible is true?  You can't give any evidence because there isn't any!

Talk about your double standards!  Lester, you are the king of double standards.    
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:45 PM on July 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You blithely discount any evidence or argument that disputes your beliefs without providing credible counter arguments of your own.


Where have you been?

And when you do quote outside sources they are of questionable repute.


I don't know if you have noticed but anyone who does not agree with evolution is of questionable repute to the evolutionist.

Meanwhile you blindly and stubbornly insist that an alternative explanation, one without any scientific merit or foundation, be considered in the science classroom.


This just shows how little you understand. Obviously you prefer science fiction to science fact or you would not feel that way.

You ignore any arguments from any field of science (not just TOE) that threatens your beliefs in a literal interpetation of the Bible.


Did you copy and paste this?

You can't give any evidence because there isn't any!


You must have copied and pasted that one as well!

Keep your eyes open Orion, we want evidence critical of Darwinism in the classroom. You can't carry on having only that which you prefer, representing your viewpoint - we want ALL the evidence and the various interpretations. That way bias and dogma can be seen for what they are and everyone can use their own brain to examine the evidence.







-------
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: 01:48 AM on July 17, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Ive never noticed any worthwhile science emanating from the Creationist milieu. If there was any that was peer reviewed and found by the scientific community to be worthwhile then by all means it could be presented to students where it is relevant to the courses they are doing and of the appropriate level for the particular students.

If the Creationists results (assuming they actually have any results to show) were taught in the classroom in  proportion to the results of evolutionary science then they imght get 30sec in a three year undergraduate program...   10 secs would probably cover all they have to say to the average high school student. I could live with that.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 03:15 AM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ive never noticed any worthwhile science emanating from the Creationist milieu.


You probably never looked for it, in fact I'll bet you avoid it.

If there was any that was peer reviewed and found by the scientific community to be worthwhile then by all means it could be presented to students where it is relevant to the courses they are doing and of the appropriate level for the particular students.


The 'scientific' community doesn't like to see Darwin criticized -they won't allow it and for the moment they appear to be disallowing critical thinking and getting away with it. I'm pretty sure this will change as people start to realize that observable science does not actually support evolution, that the fossil record as a whole does not support evolution and that only those things that support evolution tend to make it into the mainstream media and popular scienctific journals. It's not science, it's dogma, a religion and its philisophical underpinnings need to be exposed.

If the Creationists results (assuming they actually have any results to show) were taught in the classroom in  proportion to the results of evolutionary science then they imght get 30sec in a three year undergraduate program...   10 secs would probably cover all they have to say to the average high school student. I could live with that.


You'd be surprised at how much should be presented and how interesting it would make biology class. No more swallow and regurgitate.


(Edited by Lester10 7/17/2009 at 05:06 AM).


-------
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: 04:58 AM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:58 AM on July 17, 2009 :
Ive never noticed any worthwhile science emanating from the Creationist milieu.


You probably never looked for it, in fact I'll bet you avoid it.


A single example would be sufficient.



-------
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: 05:29 AM on July 17, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:27 AM on July 11, 2009 :
But if genetic evidence revises (changes) what was decided from morphological evidence, then morphology does not mean what we thought it did and we still don’t know whether the similarities point to a common ancestor rather than to a common designer. We can’t see what happened so how can we decide the cause of the pattern?


There are many reasons why genetic evidence outweighs morphological evidence, one of them being that you can only get genes from common ancestry, but you can acquire morphological similarities separately to another lineage.

To your question on why it can't be from a common designer rather than an ancestor. I think that without the fossil record your position would be valid, but with the fossil record there is nothing to support that hypothesis.

I understand that you prefer that explanation but that does not make it more ‘scientific’ in the absence of supporting evidence. We have no reason to believe that micro can lead to macro naturally and mutations don’t appear to strongly support the contention (or even weakly for that matter). What we need is not your  ‘evidence to suggest that evolution is not responsible’, we need evidence to suggest that evolution is responsible otherwise your preferred cause is more invisible than the designer who at least leaves a design as evidence of his existance.


According to you, what evidence would give credence to macro evolution?  

did God intelligently design every organism in a way that just so happens to co-inside with the explanation of micro-evolution?


Well it certainly seems reasonable to me that he designed them with programmed DNA that allows them to adapt to different circumstances for their survival, that is what they evidently do which is why variation within the kind seems to be something that we can all agree on.


So we all agree that mutations happen, can be beneficial, and can evolve populations to different species, and for you provided that they stay with in their own kind. So what evidence, beyond philosophy, do you have that would prevent enough mutations through genetic drift to cause two populations to become two distinct kinds after being part of one? Direct observation is nice, but the TOE doesn't support the idea that we would see direct observation of changes of that magnitude with in the time that we understood evolution. It would take generations to prove it through direct observation. It is not evidence in support of fixed kinds, it is not evidence of anything but support of the TOE.

Actually there is nothing to suggest that the intricacy of design and vast variety of organisms arose with apparent design but no designer. Why should everything be explained by natural law except by prejudice?


Because we have no method of understanding the supernatural, but we do have one for the natural.

It’s like having a car and needing to explain its presence without a designer  The parts all work together but are unlikely to be found in the same area and conveniently end up attached in all the right places.


A car doesn't go through biological reproduction and biological natural selection.

The arrangement of organisms is not all chemistry.


What else is needed? (I assume chemistry can be synonymous with natural laws in this case)

Why would a designer be such an unlikely suggestion that it is not allowed as a proposition? What counts a designer out?


What would a designer explain that evolution can't? Saying that a designer is scientific is very hypocritical of you. We cannot see or directly observe a designer or even a creator. Without the bible, or any other sacred text, what evidence would bring you to this conclusion that a designer would be scientific?

Why can't you use the scientific method to posit a likely scenario of how the first life came into being?


You can but why can’t you posit a creator as a necessary cause? If there’s only one possibility then you don’t even need evidence, you’re right by default and have to ignore everything that doesn’t support your dogma.


What would saying that a creator made life explain? Talking about science not philosophy, obviously saying that a creator created life has its philosophical and theological implications, but in nature what does it explain?

At least try to understand evolution. 10K years isn't enough time for major changes like that.


Not if they evolved by natural means, no.


Does this mean that hypothetically if there was 100 million years, instead of 10K, it could evolve naturally into something very different?

The only evidence of how life was created is natural. If God designed life, He, at the very least, used natural mechanisms to achieve that.


That’s the only alternative you’re willing to accept but the evidence doesn’t show that natural mechanisms created the obvious design in living things. We can explain say micro change in finch beaks via natural means but not the arrival of the finch. So it seems God may leave natural mechanisms causing minor change but he didn’t need to use natural means to create living things in the first place and there is no evidence for that.


Of course God could have created life via supernatural means, but that explains nothing. If we take the opposite assumption and say if life happened naturally how could it have happened? Then making a hypothesis and valid experiment and revising the hypothesis and experiment until the goal is achieved, that would be science. Even if we did all that and couldn't find a plausible scenario for the origin of life it wouldn't prove that there is a creator or a designer. Even if it was evidence for a creator, and someone made a theory out of it, it would never become a fact, law, or anything other than a theory, and I think that fact about science disturbs you.

Everything that we find co-insides with the explanation given by the theory of evolution.


Not true, but that is the only way ‘science’ is prepared to attempt to explain it –that is not the same as how it actually happened. It is a philosophical choice they’ve made, not a logical or essential one.


Care to back it up? Explain one thing that the TOE can't explain through the use of a designer. Not a God of the gaps argument, please, it only makes people look childish.

Huh? Science is the study of the natural, and we have applied such a method when it comes to the stars. We know how stars are born, how they go through their life, and how they die. And we know how planets are formed.


Actually science can observe what is now in existence and then, using their philosophical choice that only natural mechanisms are ALLOWED to be used to explain the arrival of the stars and the planets, they proceed to invent a plausible story which you then believe because you also think that you have no choice but to invent plausible natural scenarios .


Um, we know the universe is expanding, we've detected cosmic background radiation. (Funny story about the history of the big bang and cosmic background radiation it is. If you don't know it look up. Long story short the scientists who were dead set against the big bang actually found the cosmic background radiation that ultimately determined that the big bang happened.) No current astronomer denies the big bang. (Another anecdote, there are a some people who deny the big bang because they feel that it too closely resembles genesis!) There is a clear path from the big bang to stars, galaxies ect. that is all explained through astronomy. What exactly do you reject or not understand?

I don't think it is that black and white. I choose a middle ground.


Well it is nice to choose but don’t you see that your choice has nothing to do with what is true, it is just your particular choice. That is what science has done. They choose to disallow the supernatural and then they extend the rules of science so that now not only are you only allowed to explain things via natural mechanisms but you are only allowed to believe that it all happened via natural mechanisms.
Is the truth not important? The middle ground you have chosen is nice and it may be true but it also may not be and the truth does not depend on what you choose to believe.


My choice is philosophical and not scientific. It is a choice, as you have said. But yours is also a choice, is it not? I agree that I could be wrong, I don't know everything and I probably never will. But if I did follow the path you have stated above I would not be in the middle though, I would be a naturalist. The truth is important, I feel that the truth neither lies in naturalism or creationism solely, but rather a combination.

The choice of which God would be a theological one but the question of whether there was one or not is a model that is opposed to the naturalistic model for the origin of life. Science doesn’t need to explain it but then they mustn’t choose to enforce their choice of how it happened onto the evidence, and spend so much time and effort forcing the whole world to believe that their personal choice and plausible mechanisms is the correct one. Why don’t they stick to the observable repeatable science and stop attempting to enforce this naturalistic religion on the world under the guise of ‘science’.?


Again science by itself doesn't reject religion, but people do. Why atheists use science as a way to debunk religion, my guess is that it is how they became atheists and they feel that it is the best way to show people that they are right. But those that understand science never say that science proves that there is no God.

Scientists can go beyond the directly observable because they can and it makes sense. There are patterns to how stars form, to how planets form, how pulsars form, how the fossil record is laid out. While we cannot directly observe reptiles evolving into mammals, or a low density nebulae condensing into a star, we can tell that is what happened that is what's going to happen because of the patterns we find.

A population of amphibians slowly evolved into reptiles over X amount of generations due to mutations natural selection.


Not according to the evidence, only according to the plausible story based on a belief that naturalism is a fact not a theory.


And where is the evidence that suggests that?

If you find a rock, pile of bones ect ect. What method would you use to to determine how old it is?


First I’d use C14 dating on the bones and if I found C14 I’d know that they had to be less than ~60 000 years old. I’d never use radiometric dating.


LOL, C14 is radiometric dating, one out of many. I agree it is a very tricky business. Just because C14 is present doesn't mean it is less than 60K years; when it is more than 50K or 60K you get very odd readings for C14 that are always inaccurate. Ar dating is much better for bones up to 300K I believe. But scientists use a variety of techniques to determine age and every single one has been cross referenced with other dating methods that have been confirmed.

You start with something you know the age of, and cross reference it with things like C14 dating, tree ring data ect. When you have enough data to accurately use C14 data you can then use it to cross reference other data you collect, like Ar dating. It is hard, but you eventually make a system that can accurately date things that are billions of years old.

Not to mention cosmic background radiation has been observed and analyzed to the beginning of the universe to around 13.7 billion years ago.


I’d certainly look into all the assumptions used there. Nobody was there and you can bet your bottom dollar lots of things have been assumed in whatever technique is used. Obviously they like the date they got so they have accepted it. That again is a philosophical choice.


You just don't know what you're talking about. When we see something that is a billion light years away how do you explain it?

Believe it or not the scientific community didn't embrace evolution on site. But over time, as the facts and evidence came in, evolution won as the best explanation for the diversity of life.


Analysis of the so-called geological column is based on the principle of uniformatarianism –a principle which now appears, for obvious catastrophic reasons, to be going out of vogue. If uniformatarianism is incorrect then so is the entire guestimate of the geological column. Assumptions aplenty again.


What does this have to do with anything that I said above?

By definition macro evolution is essentially speciation which has been observed in both the lab and in natural settings. So we have observed macro evolution. The problem is that you define macro evolution as changes in kinds, but you cannot give a clear definition of kinds. Your position is not scientific, but philosophical, that is why no matter how much evidence we put in your face you will always reject macro evolution.


No, you see my position allows for two possible positions –the world was created or the world created itself. That then extends to the choice of - the original kinds were created by God or the kinds evolved by natural processes. I base my decision on the choice that the evidence best fits. Your choice is based on an assumption of naturalism. You have no choice once you assume naturalism. That is why I say your choice is a philisophical one –you believe it has to be natural and that’s that. So the evidence doesn’t matter.


Then define kind that is objective, not subjective.

If you count speciation as macro-evolution then you’re basically saying that if a finch doesn’t reproduce with another finch then macro-evolution has happened in that speciation has happened. It’s always going to be easy and obvious to see the difference between speciation and macro-evolution –unless you close your eyes and refuse to see the difference, in the interests of philosophy.


What is the difference between speciation and macro evolution?

No, maybe that is where we are not seeing eye to eye. We say that variation happens but all the genetic variation was already built/encoded into the genome of the ‘kind’ (or species).
Where change occurs due to mutation,that was not built into the ‘kind’ but is a defect in a previously perfect genetically programmed code and is usually not a good thing.


How is genetic variability embedded into the genetic code that doesn't involve mutations?

The mechanism proposed for macro evolution is the same proposed by naturalists for microevolution –that is mutation and natural selection.


What other mechanism would you add in?

The fact is as science has learned more and proven more, creationists have accepted more and more of evolutionary theory to the point where you (creationists) have essentially become a God of the gaps camp. And those gaps are becoming ever increasingly smaller.


That is old folklore. (ie. an old evolutionist’s ‘refute refute’ story leaving the poor stupid creationist with no option but to fold in defeat –don’t believe it.)


Care to demonstrate how it is folklore?

Well I’m sorry but the position of the theistic evolutionist is the most disturbed of all. Evolutionists know it, but they’re happy to have you on board to show other Christians that it is perfectly acceptable and ‘scientific’ to believe in God and evolution at the same time. The two positions are completely antagonistic in actual fact so I don’t believe that you have thought it through very carefully but I’d be interested to hear more.
For a start, how does one separate one’s belief system and the real world? The two are at odds in your case so you have to have a complete case of cognitive dissonance. It’s like saying that science is truth and your faith is myth –that is just exactly what non-Christian evolutionists think about Christianity and God.


I don't separate my belief about God from the real world, there is no cognitive dissonance. I don't interpret genesis literally for starters, and by definition genesis is mythology. You cannot read genesis like a history book, to interpret genesis literally degrades its eternal meaning. There is a reason why, statistically, the more education you have in theology and or comparative religions the more liberal you become in your personal interpretation of sacred scripture.

Either nobody understands it all –as in nobody - or we are all fundamentally capable of examining the evidence and coming to conclusions about what the evidence shows.


I stand corrected. Nobody understands it all, but those who have degrees in related fields with very few exceptions accept evolution.

Scientists have very narrow fields in which they work –my father for example works with diatoms, he’s also well versed in soybeans and a few other botanical entities. He doesn’t pretend to be a general science expert but he is capable of examining the evidence that is put to him.


I'm not saying that people can't view the evidence and can come to their own conclusions, but that we can't understand it like real scientists with degrees in their respected fields. It is not a judgment issue but a knowledge issue combined with training in how science works.

The same applies to all those rabid evolutionists out there that pretend they are so fully informed in all fields that they can see everything pointing straight to evolution –no, that’s their preference and usually, funnily enough, if you ask them which is their best evidence for evolution, they will say somebody else’s field (one that they don’t know as much about)...


I have not had that experience, again I've never asked professionals. And you do know that there are more hominid fossils than can fit on a pool table now?

The religion of theistic evolutionists is essentially deism not theism. They have a different god to the Christians.


You haven't meet too many theistic evolutionists have you? I'm not talking about cultural Christians, just fyi. There are certain things that are essential to Christianity, everything else is by default non-essential, and that makes for a very wide range of theologies. Still, most theistic evolutionists are not deists.

A different God you say? I would say a different interpretation of the same God, or perhaps some of them are more apathetic to the idea of God. Why must you be so exclusive as to who is Christian and who is not?

No they didn’t –...


Which experiment are you referring to?

That’s the story. Not even unicellular life is simple and who says that it is necessarily true that it started unicellular and increased in complexity. That’s the essence of the naturalistic story, most likely not the real story of life on this planet. Even the Cambrian has complex life forms with no sign of where they came from.


Okay, the single cells we see today are complex, but the single cells that were the first life were much simpler than what we see today. The Cambrian comment was not expected, care to elaborate?

Life is not a simple process to create from non-life. Should we dismiss that people can walk a thousand miles only because we have made one step so far? And every step we take brings us closer and closer to a scenario that works for abiogenesis.


That’s good in principle but it’s no good forcing the story into the box of naturalism and then saying that that is the only way it could have happened and the only box it could possibly fit into. That’s the objection.


But that's not how it works. We can only understand the natural because we have no way to understand the supernatural.

I’ve heard that before but I believe their funding depends on making a good case, sometimes better than it actually is. Also they like the lay people to be convinced by their plausible scenarios. It’s like a confidence trick – not all scientists do it though.


I think it is because lay men don't have the necessary knowledge to understand it in detail or why something might be controversial so when there is a scientific consensus without strong opposition they feel that it is better to write like something is more solid than it is.

But we haven't observed any 'limits' like that though.


We have actually – we are however led to believe that there are no limits because evolution has happened. But has it? Dogs will only ever be dogs and hippos will remain hippos, everyone actually knows that inside themselves so what they believe about evolution conflicts with what they know to be true.


Evolution says that dogs will only breed dogs and hippos will only breed hippos. Strangely enough if a dog has offspring that are radically different than a dog, it would be evidence against
evolution, not for.

They have only one possibility that is allowed, nature or nothing –it is their chosen philosophy and it precedes the evidence.


You keep wanting the scientific method to acknowledge the supernatural, but the scientific method is about understanding the natural. It is like asking music theory to acknowledge engineering. Music theory has nothing to do with engineering, likewise the scientific method has nothing to do with the supernatural, it wouldn't acknowledge the supernatural because it can't.

(Edited by Fencer27 7/19/2009 at 04:56 AM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:51 AM on July 19, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
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.