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
    

    
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer 27
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.


So then should we believe that the hippo is the closest ancestor of the whale rather than the hyena or a cat-like mammal because of the DNA? If morphology was never correct, should we discard it and use only DNA evidence?

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.


That the fossil record contains indisputable transitional forms (which it should if evolution is true) is propoganda; it is not the picture presented by the evidence. If you have a natural history museum near you, you should go and have a look and when they show you a family tree, ask to see the transitional forms, there aren’t any. When they draw lines connecting this and that, ask how many transitionals they have between this and that and don’t just believe it, ask where you could go to see them. If they show you a transitional then don’t let them give you a bat that looks exactly like a bat but apparently has some minor differences, make sure that it is a convincing transitional according to your brain not according to indoctrinational input. You’ll be enlightened and light is good. Common designer or even alien will start looking more probable in the light of what you will actually find.
Remember I am not saying that they are deceiving you on purpose, even a Jehovah’s witness isn’t doing that –they believe it and they want you to believe it too; and if they can’t see the evidence for themselves, they still believe it is out there which justifies the deception. It was a possibility back in Darwin’s time but in the light of a more than adequate fossil record and so many other evidences for the complexity of the simplest life, it is no longer feasible and should be trashed. If they don’t want an intelligent designer in the place of evolution by natural processes, then they must try and find something else rather than carry on kicking a dead cat.

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


A few lines of convincing transitionals, a line between one creature and the other that cannot be attributed to simple variation which we see everyday. They must also be found in the correct order in the fossil record. There should be loads of examples like that but there aren’t any -they say there are but look for yourself, there aren't.

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.


No, we don’t even agree there because I believe that Mendelian genetics accounts for the most part for the variety within the kind; it is programmed into each living organism and natural selection kills off those that are unsuited to the environment –for example short haired undomesticated dogs in the Antarctic. Mutations are never beneficial per se as they destroy information but a destruction of information can be beneficial in certain circumstances –for example where a bacteria is resistant to an antibiotic by virtue of lack of a protein (protein mutated and became non-functional) that converts the antibiotic to a toxin. In that case only those bacteria with the missing protein will survive but that doesn’t mean that they are generally hardier than the original kind of bacteria and it does mean that they will probably be selected against in a normal environment which lacks that antibiotic. Whenever you see an example of so-called ‘beneficial mutation’, try to ascertain what is missing to cause the circumstantial benefit.

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?


Mutations large enough to cause significant morphological change (not like finch beaks- that’s genetic variation) seems to only cause sterility or death. If you can find some examples where that didn’t happen, I’d be very interested to see them.Also how do you imagine that a creature without wings would acquire the organized co-ordinated information that would be needed to code for wings via random unrelated changes in the genome? There's no way of storing up beneficial related mutations for some future big event or organ if there's no purpose.

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.


And when we do we have a visible mutant, it doesn’t survive. So effectively all the evidence is and always will be hidden from us. In that case, is it scientifically justifiable to hypothesize its occurrence lacking a respectable fossil record demonstrating clearly that it did happen?

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


But if you consider the complexity of the simplest cell, natural processes can’t account for it –even via mutation and natural selection because you’d have to have reproducing life before mutation and natural selection could start working on it. That’s a tall order.
The thing is not to say you have to explain how the supernatural made life but that it is a potential cause of life. It’s far better to allow for one or the other, creation or evolution than to just say, it has to be natural because we can’t explain and investigate the supernatural. That’s like saying John did it, and it couldn’t be Mary because it had to be John (prejudice) and it couldn’t be Mary (prejudice) so we concoct a long story of how John did it when meantime Mary actually did it but we refused to accept that as a possibility. Saying that the origin of life and species could have been a supernatural event is just allowing for the obvious. If it wasn’t natural, it was supernatural. That doesn’t stop science, we still get to investigate everything that exists and see how it works; we just no longer can claim to be in control of all knowledge. Some people don’t like that.
Saying that it was a supernatural event doesn’t mean we know who did it either. If we decide it was supernatural there would still be various theological possibilities as to who that supernatural creator could be.

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


Yes chemistry would be synonymous with natural laws in this case. What else is needed is the information.Dean Kenyon wrote a university textbook called “Chemical Predestination” about the origin of life and chemistry. It was used by students for 20 years but ultimately Dean Kenyon didn’t agree with himself anymore because he was challenged to explain the order of the DNA, the information part of it. He couldn’t explain the origin of it as pure chemistry and neither could he in good conscience carry on backing his own previous story. His university tried to fire him when he came out in support of intelligent design but couldn’t legally do it; he was then demoted to lab assistant, all for backing off from evolution as being a natural cause for life and the genetic code. Thank goodness some people still have a conscience, it would have been far better in all ways for him to just carry on with what he had originally asserted. I’m sure evolutionists will have all sorts of garbage stories about him that would be easily passed around and believed but I also have plenty other examples of people whose lives were negatively impacted by rocking the boat of evolution by natural causes.
If you think about it logically the letters of DNA have to be placed in the correct order to code for the correct amino-acids that have to line up to make the correct protein that can be folded correctly to perform a specific function in a specific place interacting with other specific shaped proteins that have to work together. The DNA has to  have mechanisms to switch these proteins on and off as they are needed, where they are needed and in what quantities they are needed. This sounds far more like a programmed computer than it does a product of chance and time that just happened to get it right. The entire human body has to interact with its various functions and parts to act as an integrated whole. We can’t live without our liver, our kidneys and various other specialized organs. They have to be there and they have to operate and for that we need specific proteins performing specific functions so that the whole is integrated and functional. Try and get a programme like photoshop via random mistakes to the ‘paint’ programme. Choose the best mistakes in ‘paint’ through copying and recopying and think whether you’re likely to build up something better. Give it millions of years and all you’ll have is more mess.        
Information comes from intelligence –it is not material, it is weightless and can be transferred from one medium to the next much like transferring photos from computer to memory stick to CD to paper. The information is not a material part of the system.
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.

Unless it didn’t happen naturally, then we’d be beating a dead cat. The evidence for it is not great. Why explain something via natural means if it didn’t happen like that? It’s not a science stopper to say there must be a supernatural cause but it is a science stopper following a path of fantasy at great expense. You’ve just got to have at least one alternative or else you don’t need any evidence, you just need to keep inventing plausible stories.

Explain one thing that the TOE can't explain through the use of a designer.


Everything in the fossil record arrives suddenly and fully formed. If embryos and other soft bodied organisms are capable of fossilization then so are the precursors to fish, bats, dinosaurs, invertebrates –all of which have no ancestors. That’s what the real fossil record shows. If creation was allowed as an alternative theory for the origin of life, it would win hands down. Instead the evidence for creation is being used as evidence for evolution instead of falsifying evolution which it actually does.

There is a clear path from the big bang to stars, galaxies ect.


What went ‘bang’? Where did the matter come from?

I feel that the truth neither lies in naturalism or creationism solely, but rather a combination.


Perhaps that is your preference. Then lets allow for both possibilities and see where it takes us. The naturalists have science in a vice grip and they don’t want anything but evolution to be taught. We need to allow criticisms of Darwinism. What are they so scared of? It’s not some vague scare tactic of religious theocracies that bothers them, it’s actually the fact that given alternatives, evolution may well flunk the test and that is unacceptable.
Science never absolutely proves any theory, it only disproves some theories. Criticizing a theory is not negativism since falsification of wrong concepts is an essential part of gaining knowledge through scientific research. Thus it is most appropriate to discuss the failures along with the successes.The failures need to see the light of day rather than being treated as non-confirming evidence and being shoved into a dark corner.

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.


I fully agree. I don’t think they necessarily have as their prime directive to convince other people though, I think they have a need to convince themselves via convincing other people, and this acts as positive feedback in their stand against the God that they deny exists.

The truth is important


I’m really happy to hear that you feel that way –I’d rather believe what’s true then what’s convenient.

A population of amphibians slowly evolved into reptiles over X amount of generations due to mutations natural selection.
And where is the evidence that suggests that?


Lack of a convincing demonstration that suggests that it did happen –in the fossils or in any other place.

LOL, C14 is radiometric dating, one out of many.


Sorry that was badly put. Yes C14 is radiometric dating but I say we can use it to determine a maximum age not an actual age, it hasn’t proven to be very accurate for known dates . Radiometric dating is just too out to be believed and the only dates they accept from the rest of the radiometric dating line up are the ones that line up with the geological column, the bible of the evolutionist.

My choice is philosophical and not scientific. It is a choice, as you have said.


Good to hear you say that. At least you understand that. Too many evolutionists do not even see that they have made a philosophical choice. Both theories involve once off historical events so neither can be proven to be true. What we need is to falsify subtheories within the main theories but evolution is so elastic it can explain anything - so it is not falsifiable thus it is not science.

What is the difference between speciation and macro evolution?


Speciation is change within the kind –ie.the same kind is produced eg. finch produces finch. Technically kind may be genus or species, I’m not sure how we can compare it to current divisions. I’m sure other creationists would have a bettr thought out answer to that question. What I do know is that for all practical purposes fruit flies only ever produced more fruit flies deformed or otherwise through thousands of generations. Nothing new was ever produced, no new organs, nothing that you wouldn’t recognize to be a fruit fly –that is what I mean by ‘kind.’ No macro-evolution occurred despite plenty of time-consuming mutating effort.








-------
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: 06:05 AM on July 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
And when we do we have a visible mutant, it doesn’t survive. So effectively all the evidence is and always will be hidden from us. In that case, is it scientifically justifiable to hypothesize its occurrence lacking a respectable fossil record demonstrating clearly that it did happen?


How about if we could go back in time and see that present day population actually does differ from its acestor?  For instance, perhaps a population has acquired an adaptation to a toxic pollutant.  That would require the population adapting to a change in the environment via natural selection, just as TOE predicts.  Natural selection would be acting upon mutations within the population that would allow the population to adapt to a change in environmental conditions.

Such a situation has actually been observed.  Here is an example:

Ecologist Brings Century-old eggs to life to study Evolution

In 1999 Hairston and colleagues published a paper in Nature that described how 40-year-old resurrected eggs could answer whether tiny crustaceans called Daphnia in central Europe's Lake Constance had evolved to survive rising levels of toxic cyanobacteria, known as blue-green algae. In the 1970s, phosphorus levels from pollution rose in the lake, increasing the numbers of cyanobacteria. The researchers hatched eggs from the 1960s and found they could not survive the toxic lake conditions, but Daphnia from the 1970s had adapted and survived.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:08 PM on July 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion

I don't have any problem with adaptation to changing environment. No creationist has any problem with natural selection and adaptation but crustaceans remain crustaceans which is microevolution or adaptation not the sort of macro-evolution that we say cannot and never did happen.  


-------
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: 02:30 AM on July 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:05 AM on July 21, 2009 :
So then should we believe that the hippo is the closest ancestor of the whale rather than the hyena or a cat-like mammal because of the DNA? If morphology was never correct, should we discard it and use only DNA evidence?


It is not an either or in science. There are other things to consider, like geographical location and time of existence. Like in whale evolution we see a clear pattern in the right time line showing hyena-like mammals slowly changing over time to whales.

That the fossil record contains indisputable transitional forms (which it should if evolution is true) is propoganda; it is not the picture presented by the evidence.


Archeopteryx is a prime example of a transitional fossil. There is also Tiktaalik and homo erectus, to name some of the more famous ones.  

Remember I am not saying that they are deceiving you on purpose, even a Jehovah’s witness isn’t doing that –they believe it and they want you to believe it too; and if they can’t see the evidence for themselves, they still believe it is out there which justifies the deception.


I could say the same thing about you, and the creationist movement in general.  

It was a possibility back in Darwin’s time but in the light of a more than adequate fossil record and so many other evidences for the complexity of the simplest life, it is no longer feasible and should be trashed.


Evolution is about the diversity of life, not how life started. Evolution must work with a genetic system already in place. Abiogenesis is about how that genetic system got into place and how the first life started, it is a new, and very hard field.

if they don’t want an intelligent designer in the place of evolution by natural processes, then they must try and find something else rather than carry on kicking a dead cat.


Transitionals are clearly seen.

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


A few lines of convincing transitionals, a line between one creature and the other that cannot be attributed to simple variation which we see everyday. They must also be found in the correct order in the fossil record. There should be loads of examples like that but there aren’t any -they say there are but look for yourself, there aren't.


I've listed some of the standard transitionals earlier in my post that satisfies every definition of a transitional.

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.


No, we don’t even agree there because I believe that Mendelian genetics accounts for the most part for the variety within the kind; it is programmed into each living organism and natural selection kills off those that are unsuited to the environment


How does that go against what I said?

Mutations are never beneficial per se as they destroy information but a destruction of information can be beneficial in certain circumstances –for example where a bacteria is resistant to an antibiotic by virtue of lack of a protein (protein mutated and became non-functional) that converts the antibiotic to a toxin. In that case only those bacteria with the missing protein will survive but that doesn’t mean that they are generally hardier than the original kind of bacteria and it does mean that they will probably be selected against in a normal environment which lacks that antibiotic.


Nonetheless, whether a mutation is beneficial or not is determined by the environment. In this case it is beneficial, the fact that it may be harmful in another environment is irrelevant as it is not the environment in which the population exists.

Whenever you see an example of so-called ‘beneficial mutation’, try to ascertain what is missing to cause the circumstantial benefit.


What is lactose tolerance missing?

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?


Mutations large enough to cause significant morphological change (not like finch beaks- that’s genetic variation) seems to only cause sterility or death.


Just as evolution predicts.  

If you can find some examples where that didn’t happen, I’d be very interested to see them.


I doubt they exist as well, the modern TOE would be in big trouble if this were the case.

Also how do you imagine that a creature without wings would acquire the organized co-ordinated information that would be needed to code for wings via random unrelated changes in the genome?


Well, the development of wings started out as feathers to keep warm. Eventually they would get enough feathers that it would help them not only to keep warm but to help glide as well, and from there flight.

There's no way of storing up beneficial related mutations for some future big event or organ if there's no purpose.


But that's not what evolution says or even predicts. Every step must be either beneficial or neutral to the fitness of the organism/population.

And when we do we have a visible mutant, it doesn’t survive.


We are all mutants! The average human zygote has 128 mutations, and will gain around 30 more during life.

So effectively all the evidence is and always will be hidden from us. In that case, is it scientifically justifiable to hypothesize its occurrence lacking a respectable fossil record demonstrating clearly that it did happen?


In science you need evidence, otherwise it will remain a hypothesis or model. You can hypothesize about anything really, and as long as you adjust your model to fit the evidence you've done nothing wrong in science.

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


But if you consider the complexity of the simplest cell, natural processes can’t account for it –even via mutation and natural selection because you’d have to have reproducing life before mutation and natural selection could start working on it.


The simplest cell today is far more complex than the first cell. You are right in that life must exist for evolution to happen, but wrong in that mutations and natural selection did happen in pre-cells. But remember, evolution is the explanation for the diversity of life once life was already under way, not how life originated, that is left to the study of abiogenesis.

The thing is not to say you have to explain how the supernatural made life but that it is a potential cause of life. It’s far better to allow for one or the other, creation or evolution than to just say, it has to be natural because we can’t explain and investigate the supernatural.


Science doesn't claim to know any absolute truth, and saying life, or even evolution, is 100% natural is not scientific, but would be a personal choice. But the only avenue of study is natural, not to say that it only has to be natural, but we can only study the natural and bringing in the supernatural to explain something isn't productive. Saying that the supernatural created life doesn't explain anything in regards to science. There is no reason to pursue that line of thinking unless it is theological or philosophical and not science.

That’s like saying John did it, and it couldn’t be Mary because it had to be John (prejudice) and it couldn’t be Mary (prejudice) so we concoct a long story of how John did it when meantime Mary actually did it but we refused to accept that as a possibility.


Why couldn't it be Mary did it through John? John did it, but was carrying out orders from Mary. Yet since we can't see, hear, smell, touch, or taste Mary, we can only say that John did it, and any addition of Mary would be grounded in philosophy.

Saying that the origin of life and species could have been a supernatural event is just allowing for the obvious.


There is no way to objectively test that statement, so any one who comments on it is only speaking their opinion.

If it wasn’t natural, it was supernatural. That doesn’t stop science, we still get to investigate everything that exists and see how it works; we just no longer can claim to be in control of all knowledge. Some people don’t like that.


Science never claims to know any absolute truth, scientists are fine in saying we don't know with 100% accuracy that evolution is true. Ironically creationists are the only ones who claim to have absolute truth in how the universe was made. And you're right, some people just can't entertain the fact that they might be wrong.

Saying that it was a supernatural event doesn’t mean we know who did it either. If we decide it was supernatural there would still be various theological possibilities as to who that supernatural creator could be.


Well of course, but it has nothing to do with science. And even if science did say that it was supernatural, it doesn't prove that it was supernatural. The next day might come up with support for a naturalistic cause and denounce the supernatural.

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


Yes chemistry would be synonymous with natural laws in this case. What else is needed is the information.


What information? There is information in life; like the codon AUG in RNA has information to start protein synthesis in translation, but it is all chemical. You don't need anything other than natural laws to explain how life works.

Dean Kenyon wrote a university textbook called “Chemical Predestination” about the origin of life and chemistry. It was used by students for 20 years but ultimately Dean Kenyon didn’t agree with himself anymore because he was challenged to explain the order of the DNA, the information part of it. He couldn’t explain the origin of it as pure chemistry and neither could he in good conscience carry on backing his own previous story.


I have never heard of him or his book, probably because I'm too young to know anything about him. Regardless, I am talking about things that are already alive, as this is not a thread on abiogenesis. This may be a misunderstanding, but what exactly can natural laws not explain about life that is already here?

What evidence, if any, did Kenyon use to say that life isn't natural?  Or is this just his opinion and not substantiated by the evidence?

If you think about it logically the letters of DNA have to be placed in the correct order to code for the correct amino-acids that have to line up to make the correct protein that can be folded correctly to perform a specific function in a specific place interacting with other specific shaped proteins that have to work together. The DNA has to  have mechanisms to switch these proteins on and off as they are needed, where they are needed and in what quantities they are needed.


Indeed it is very complex, but all of it can be explained by chemistry. Evolution doesn't say that these things just spontaneously appeared out of thin air, the only people who are proposing this are creationists. Again I am skeptical of my interpretation as you seem to have no distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, two different fields of study. If you want to talk about abiogenesis please start a new thread.

This sounds far more like a programmed computer than it does a product of chance and time that just happened to get it right.


Genetic algorithms are computer programs that essentially use the properties of evolution to solve complex problems, and when tested against human designs for the same problem, they leave the human designs in the dust. The interesting thing is that genetic algorithms make random programs through random chance, and through a system of natural selection and random mutations. The programs they make are more complex than anything any human could make with literally irreducibly complex systems, all through an evolutionary process for computer programs.

The entire human body has to interact with its various functions and parts to act as an integrated whole. We can’t live without our liver, our kidneys and various other specialized organs. They have to be there and they have to operate and for that we need specific proteins performing specific functions so that the whole is integrated and functional.


I ask again, what specifically can chemistry not account for? Genetic algorithms have made irreducibly complex systems through random chance with no intelligence, just basic principles and laws that mimic those observed in nature and evolution.

Try and get a programme like photoshop via random mistakes to the ‘paint’ programme. Choose the best mistakes in ‘paint’ through copying and recopying and think whether you’re likely to build up something better. Give it millions of years and all you’ll have is more mess.


With genetic algorithms after a few thousand generations you get things that are better than those designed by humans. Remember, evolution doesn't support a perfect genome in the beginning, but a gradual increase in complexity.         
Information comes from intelligence –it is not material, it is weightless and can be transferred from one medium to the next much like transferring photos from computer to memory stick to CD to paper.


If information has no mass, no matter, than we should be able to fit an infinite amount on CD's, USB drives ect. However information is expressed, and does have matter, which is why there is only a finite amount of information we can put on a CD. Any notion of information as not material is metaphysical.

Information doesn't come from intelligence, we may be able to perceive that information because of our intelligence, but the information would be there with or without our intelligence, or any other intelligence. Are you saying that polypeptides have intelligence?

The information is not a material part of the system.


Perhaps you could expand on this?

Unless it didn’t happen naturally, then we’d be beating a dead cat.


Lets say that it did happen via supernatural means. What then, what does it explain, how does it better man-kind?

Why explain something via natural means if it didn’t happen like that?


Because we don't know how life started, and the only thing we can objectively see, test, observe is the natural. No one is saying that we know how life started except creationists. But through science we can posit scenarios that are plausible and objectively completely natural.

It’s not a science stopper to say there must be a supernatural cause


Yes it is! Science doesn't deal with the supernatural, saying that it is supernatural automatically excludes science from the equation, and prevents scientific inquiry.  

You’ve just got to have at least one alternative or else you don’t need any evidence, you just need to keep inventing plausible stories.


But science doesn't work that way, it follows the evidence, if only one explanation is needed, then why create an alternative? As it has already been told to you, there was another alternative to Darwinian evolution, Lamarckian evolution, but in the end it was rejected and replaced with Mendelian genetics and Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Everything in the fossil record arrives suddenly and fully formed.


By suddenly you mean millions of years, and buy fully formed evolution would be in trouble if it weren't true as evolution requires all intermediate steps to be viable.

If embryos and other soft bodied organisms are capable of fossilization then so are the precursors to fish, bats, dinosaurs, invertebrates –all of which have no ancestors.


While I am not versed in specific evolutionary pathways, but my guess is that we do have fossilized remains of their ancestors. And even if we don't, just because we haven't found the fossil yet doesn't mean it didn't exist, just that we haven't found it yet.

That’s what the real fossil record shows. If creation was allowed as an alternative theory for the origin of life, it would win hands down. Instead the evidence for creation is being used as evidence for evolution instead of falsifying evolution which it actually does.


No one has ever made a theory of creation, I even started a thread on it where either you or timbrix said that there is no theory of creation because it is not scientific.

So what evidence supports creation instead of evolution? You can post this response in the thread I made for creationists to show evidential support for creation.

There is a clear path from the big bang to stars, galaxies ect.


What went ‘bang’? Where did the matter come from?


Nothing went 'bang'. The term was originally used by the big bang skeptics in the science community and it caught on. It should really be called the start of expansion, or something to that affect. No one knows where the energy came from, there are multiple hypotheses, but no one really knows. Many Christians and those of other religions say that it was God. Just a little fyi; several people don't accept the big bang because of how closely it mirrors genesis.

Perhaps that is your preference. Then lets allow for both possibilities and see where it takes us. The naturalists have science in a vice grip and they don’t want anything but evolution to be taught. We need to allow criticisms of Darwinism. What are they so scared of? It’s not some vague scare tactic of religious theocracies that bothers them, it’s actually the fact that given alternatives, evolution may well flunk the test and that is unacceptable.


They don't want creationism in science classes being taught on par with evolution for many reasons. First it isn't science, there is no theory of creation, there is no active research in this field done by real scientists, and the evidence just doesn't support it. Secondly it is illegal according to the first amendment in the U.S. constitution; freedom of religion, the U.S. government cannot legally support any religion over another. And earlier in U.S. history creationism was banned because of it, and recently ID was banned for the same reason in Dover.

Science never absolutely proves any theory, it only disproves some theories. Criticizing a theory is not negativism since falsification of wrong concepts is an essential part of gaining knowledge through scientific research.


Thirdly, a high school student doesn't have the knowledge or understanding to criticize any scientific theory. Such things should be left to the peer review section in the scientific literature where real scientists determine which theories are valid, and which are not.

Thus it is most appropriate to discuss the failures along with the successes.The failures need to see the light of day rather than being treated as non-confirming evidence and being shoved into a dark corner.


Although I have heard of many people promoting creationism in the science classroom to teach the difference between real science and pseudo science. Even Behe said that ID is no more science than astrology in a court of law under oath. Please tell me you don't believe in astrology as well.

I fully agree. I don’t think they necessarily have as their prime directive to convince other people though, I think they have a need to convince themselves via convincing other people, and this acts as positive feedback in their stand against the God that they deny exists.


I don't know if that is their prime objective, but whether they are aware of it or not, it is very positive feedback on their choice. Such experiences can and does influence people, and I would say that when Christians convert or teach/preach a similar affect is observed.

The truth is important


I’m really happy to hear that you feel that way –I’d rather believe what’s true then what’s convenient.


Indeed, and what part of my choice is convenient? I get attacked by atheists for believing in God, and attacked by creationists for accepting evolution. My choice has put me in the middle of a classic pincer attack.

A population of amphibians slowly evolved into reptiles over X amount of generations due to mutations natural selection.
Lack of a convincing demonstration that suggests that it did happen –in the fossils or in any other place.


My guess is that someone has already shown you fossils of the transitionals and you just denied the evidence, or refused to admit that they did show you and that they don't exist.

Yes C14 is radiometric dating but I say we can use it to determine a maximum age not an actual age, it hasn’t proven to be very accurate for known dates.


C14 isn't going to decay away completely, and there is always contaminants, saying that if something has C14 in it isn't saying anything at all.

Radiometric dating is just too out to be believed and the only dates they accept from the rest of the radiometric dating line up are the ones that line up with the geological column, the bible of the evolutionist.


There were huge studies on radiometric dating, and they all showed that radiometric dating is reliable. How is it not reliable when real scientists use it?

My choice is philosophical and not scientific. It is a choice, as you have said.


Good to hear you say that. At least you understand that. Too many evolutionists do not even see that they have made a philosophical choice.


I don't want to soil a cheery moment but I think you misunderstood me. The choice to accept evolution is not philosophical. My philosophical choice comes by saying that it is a combination of the natural and supernatural that make up the universe.

Both theories involve once off historical events so neither can be proven to be true. What we need is to falsify subtheories within the main theories but evolution is so elastic it can explain anything - so it is not falsifiable thus it is not science.


Projection! You can easily falsify evolution, just find a bunny in the Cambrian, or find a case where a chimpanzee gave birth to a human ect and you will falsify evolution. But creationism starts off with pre-conceptions about the universe that they will never change, to a creationist creationism can't be falsifiable.

What is the difference between speciation and macro evolution?


Speciation is change within the kind


Um, despite the fact that no one knows what counts as a kind, that definition is completely wrong. Speciation is where one population becomes two or more distinct species. In all respects it is macro evolution. What you are proposing speciation to be is essentially micro evolution, but instead of species, you have kinds.

Technically kind may be genus or species


There is a big difference between species and genus when it comes to science. So really what you have said is that the definition of kind can change to fit whatever definition kind needs to be in order to fit the creationist model.

I’m sure other creationists would have a [better] thought out answer to that question.


Surprisingly I don't think anyone has a better answer to that question.

What I do know is that for all practical purposes fruit flies only ever produced more fruit flies deformed or otherwise through thousands of generations. Nothing new was ever produced, no new organs, nothing that you wouldn’t recognize to be a fruit fly


All you said is that kind is subjective. There is no way to objectively tell one kind from another. You want to see big changes in your lifetime from parent to offspring, but evolution wouldn't allow it.

that is what I mean by ‘kind.’ No macro-evolution occurred despite plenty of time-consuming mutating effort.


Macro evolution is one species changing into another species, which we have observed in both the lab and natural settings. We have observed macro evolution, but you twist the real definition to mean changes in kinds, but no one knows what a kind is. So the hypothesis that things don't change kinds can't be falsifiable and therefore not science, but religious dogma that is incompatible with the evidence and can only be believed through blind faith and rejection of what we know.


-------
"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: 04:10 AM on July 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
I’m really happy to hear that you feel that way –I’d rather believe what’s true then what’s convenient.
But it's you, religious people (the ones that tend to be creationists) who always use the slippery slope, and arguments from negative consequences.

That's the opposite of what you're now saying.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:12 PM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer27
My apologies, I did not notice this reply before!Hope you're still around.

It is not an either or in science. There are other things to consider, like geographical location and time of existence. Like in whale evolution we see a clear pattern in the right time line showing hyena-like mammals slowly changing over time to whales.


No we don’t actually. Those are only hopeful would be transitionals needed to keep evolution looking possible. They might very well be simply extinct animals, nothing to do with whales. There’s a lot of wishful thinking that goes on in the evolution field. Evolutionists need whale intermediates –so they find them.

Archeopteryx is a prime example of a transitional fossil. There is also Tiktaalik and homo erectus, to name some of the more famous ones.  


To name some of the very few questionable ones that are paraded before us regularly you mean.There should be tens of thousands of unquestionable intermediates lining the museum shelves but instead they are few, far between and always extremely questionable. Try visiting a museum and see what reality looks like. When they show you family trees on paper, ask to see the intermediates represented by the branching patterns. Generally they don’t exist. But don’t take my word for it, go and look. In particular ask to see the transitionals leading up to the Cambrian invertebrates and the invertebrate/fish intermediates. Remember there are billions of invertebrates and billions of fish so the intermediates shouldn’t be anything less than well-represented and clearly intermediate.

Evolution must work with a genetic system already in place.


But if they don’t know how the genetic system got there, how can they know that one kind of creature can turn into another? If the DNA is not part of the theory, that is convenient for them but ridiculous as well. We all know that they are sure the whole system evolved by natural means so why disclaim it as the essential beginning to their big plausible story?

Transitionals are clearly seen.

No they aren’t, you’ve been brainwashed.
How does that go against what I said?

Most of the variation is built in to the original kind, not brought about by mutations.
Nonetheless, whether a mutation is beneficial or not is determined by the environment. In this case it is beneficial, the fact that it may be harmful in another environment is irrelevant as it is not the environment in which the population exists


The problem is that the mutation that was beneficial in one particular environment makes it generally less fit when it goes back to the original parent population and it is unable to compete as effectively as those without that mutation.

Well, the development of wings started out as feathers to keep warm. Eventually they would get enough feathers that it would help them not only to keep warm but to help glide as well, and from there flight.


That’s a story Fencer, like Goldilocks. Actually two crow like birds were found in Post Texas (called Protoavis) dated at 225 million years, about 75 million years older than Archeopteryx. Were they more reptilian than archaeopteryx? No – that would have been nice, but they were fully bird-like (as is Archeopteryx actually) and were around as old as the ‘first’ dinosaurs making a dinosaur-bird transition even less likely than ever.(not that we ever doubted it).

But that's not what evolution says or even predicts. Every step must be either beneficial or neutral to the fitness of the organism/population.


So are you saying that a liver or a wing popped up in one step or are you saying that we just haven’t found the transitional forms yet?

We are all mutants!


You’re watching too much science fiction! We‘re actually all humans, created as humans and on a downhill slide. That is where mutations are taking us.

In science you need evidence, otherwise it will remain a hypothesis or model. You can hypothesize about anything really, and as long as you adjust your model to fit the evidence you've done nothing wrong in science.


Evolution doesn’t work like that.The theory is superior to and precedes the evidence. No amount of evidence to the contrary makes evolution less plausible in the evolutionist’s eyes. They have a faith that surpasses all understanding.

The simplest cell today is far more complex than the first cell.


No, that’s the story. In practice, unicellular organisms have barely changed in more than 600 million years! It’s because they’re happy you see.

mutations and natural selection did happen in pre-cells


That’s also a story, Fencer. You must really start noticing the difference between the fact and the fiction. Anyway, you said yourself that abiogenesis is not part of evolution so you can just ignore that problem.

Saying that the supernatural created life doesn't explain anything in regards to science. There is no reason to pursue that line of thinking unless it is theological or philosophical and not science.


Saying that purely natural law and chemical attractions caused life to 'emerge' is just as philosophical but that doesn’t stop the evolutionist from forcing their opinion down everybody’s throat at tax payer’s expense. So why don’t we dump the evolution and just stick with the observable science? There’s so much to be learned. Why teach your religion and simply ignore everybody else’s? Why don’t we just get rid of all the philosophy and religion in science. That should suit all of us. Evolutionists just need to know when they have crossed from science into philosophy and religion. They are generally unaware of the transition. Reality and strange stories just blend into each other mercilessly.

There is information in life; like the codon AUG in RNA has information to start protein synthesis in translation, but it is all chemical. You don't need anything other than natural laws to explain how life works.


If it were all just chemistry then nucleotide bases and the acids of amino-acids would just stick together in all the wrong places. You know acids and bases tend to attract? When that does happen, death is busy occurring. Death is actually the triumph of chemistry over biology. Also when the L-amino acids in humans start converting to a 50:50 mix of left and right forms, then death is occurring. I wouldn’t rely on chemistry to keep me alive!

But the only avenue of study is natural, not to say that it only has to be natural, but we can only study the natural and bringing in the supernatural to explain something isn't productive.


And forcing naturalism as the only allowed explanation isn’t productive either so let’s kick all that philosophy out and keep science scientific.

Genetic algorithms are computer programs that essentially use the properties of evolution to solve complex problems, and when tested against human designs for the same problem, they leave the human designs in the dust.


Well these genetic algorithms are devised by humans after all. Humans with bias. Evolutionists. Garbage in, garbage out as the saying goes.

Indeed it is very complex, but all of it can be explained by chemistry.


You’re dreaming. No more than a computer’s existence can be explained without a designer or a manufacturer. In short, an organizer of parts.

With genetic algorithms after a few thousand generations you get things that are better than those designed by humans.


I’m thinking you mean better than those designed by God or than those evolved by natural law?

But through science we can posit scenarios that are plausible and objectively completely natural.


And possibly totally fictional.

But science doesn't work that way, it follows the evidence, if only one explanation is needed, then why create an alternative?


But what if that explanation that you accept is plausible but false? Every possibility should be on the table along with the evidences supporting those possibilities. Saying that God might have created life does not turn science into theology. You don’t have to discuss which God, just that there is evidence to suggest that something beyond natural law may have been responsible for the organized complexity of life. To leave out possible alternative explanations apart from natural law as a possibility is like organized philosophically inspired self-deception.

If information has no mass, no matter, than we should be able to fit an infinite amount on CD's, USB drives ect.


Does a book weigh more when it contains information? Maybe the ink weighs something but the information is not the ink. Do you get heavier the more you store information in your head? Have you weighed a CD before and after adding information? If you wipe your hard drive, does your computer weigh less?

Are you saying that polypeptides have intelligence?


No, but polypeptides line up due to information on the DNA –it’s coded information. Where did it come from? Not from chemistry.

Remember, evolution doesn't support a perfect genome in the beginning, but a gradual increase in complexity.


While creation posits a perfect original genome deteriorating with time. The exact opposite.

Lets say that it did happen via supernatural means. What then, what does it explain, how does it better man-kind?


We have a purpose, we are created. We are not a random accident of nature. There is a reason we are here and we should try to find out why?

By suddenly you mean millions of years, and buy fully formed evolution would be in trouble if it weren't true as evolution requires all intermediate steps to be viable.


True but by fully formed I mean for example that when fish appear, no matter where, they are recognizably fish, all of a sudden in the fossil record –no signs of how they came to be fish. You still require the would-be fish to slowly step by step change into a fish. Why do we find billions of invertebrates, billions of fish and never the tens of thousands of inbetweens that there should be? Occasionally they find something that is most likely just an extinct creature and they rush to place it between this and that assuming evolution. Ever hopeful and sadly deluded. The numbers are all wrong.

While I am not versed in specific evolutionary pathways, but my guess is that we do have fossilized remains of their ancestors.


That guess would be based on a belief in evolution. My guess is that you won’t find them. Bats are bats, dinosaurs are dinosaurs, very recognizable specific kinds and they come from nowhere according to the fossil record if you look at it completely objectively and drop your hopeful little evolutionary glasses. Like I say, go to a fossil museum and keep those glasses off. Be objective.

It should really be called the start of expansion, or something to that affect. No one knows where the energy came from, there are multiple hypotheses, but no one really knows.


Precisely. It is a creation story designed in fact to replace creation by God. It requires faith.

They don't want creationism in science classes being taught on par with evolution for many reasons. First it isn't science


It is every bit as scientific as evolution – more so in fact as the theory correlates better with the evidence.

there is no active research in this field done by real scientists


Actually there is, they just don’t receive tax funded grants as they are not the favoured religion.

and the evidence just doesn't support it.


Oh yes it does!

Secondly it is illegal according to the first amendment in the U.S. constitution; freedom of religion, the U.S. government cannot legally support any religion over another.


But they do. They support evolution despite the unobservable, unrepeatable purely religious and philosophical nature of naturalism.They don’t know that it’s true but they fund all the research that attempts to prove that it’s possible while neglecting completely the only possible alternative, that of creation.

And earlier in U.S. history creationism was banned because of it, and recently ID was banned for the same reason in Dover.


And once apon a time, evolution was banned in Dayton Tennessee and look how well that worked out for evolution. It’s not always the apparent winner that wins you know. It’s the Scopes trial turned on it’s head' and creation is now the explanation for origins being suppressed.

Thirdly, a high school student doesn't have the knowledge or understanding to criticize any scientific theory.


You sound like the clergy of the Roman Catholic church talking about the congregation. The problem is that evolutionists don’t think that the average educated layman has the knowledge or understanding to criticize either. Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark!

Such things should be left to the peer review section in the scientific literature where real scientists determine which theories are valid, and which are not.


You mean the evolutionists don’t you.

Even Behe said that ID is no more science than astrology in a court of law under oath.


I’d love to see that quote in context. Care to dig it up for me?

I get attacked by atheists for believing in God, and attacked by creationists for accepting evolution. My choice has put me in the middle of a classic pincer attack.


I wouldn’t worry. I get attacked by both atheists and theistic evolutionists so we’re in the same boat.

C14 isn't going to decay away completely, and there is always contaminants, saying that if something has C14 in it isn't saying anything at all.


Well that’s a completely convenient way of saying that if the level of C14 isn’t to my liking, it must be one of the available rationalizations to blame. Why is there still measurable C14 still in ‘millions of years’ old diamonds? I’m not talking about a trace, I’m talking about enough to make a case for a young earth?

There were huge studies on radiometric dating, and they all showed that radiometric dating is reliable. How is it not reliable when real scientists use it?


It doesn’t give accurate dates over about 1500 years I hear. That’s according to checking with known dates. It tends to give dates that are too old. That is, no doubt, because of all the same suppositions that are used generally in radiometric dating.

My choice is philosophical and not scientific. It is a choice, as you have said.
Good to hear you say that. At least you understand that. Too many evolutionists do not even see that they have made a philosophical choice.
I don't want to soil a cheery moment but I think you misunderstood me. The choice to accept evolution is not philosophical. My philosophical choice comes by saying that it is a combination of the natural and supernatural that make up the universe.


Well I don’t want to soil/ spoil? a cheery moment either but maybe you just didn’t realize that your choice to accept evolution is also philosophical.

Projection! You can easily falsify evolution, just find a bunny in the Cambrian, or find a case where a chimpanzee gave birth to a human ect and you will falsify evolution.


No, you don’t understand. There will always be an elastic excuse on offer. There are so many things out of order and they get called overthrust, downwashed, uplifted, rearranged or even screwed over –it’s all scientific.

Macro evolution is one species changing into another species, which we have observed in both the lab and natural settings.


No that isn’t macroevolution –that is just a useless attempt to patch over a very big problem.




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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:52 PM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:52 AM on August 22, 2009 :
Macro evolution is one species changing into another species, which we have observed in both the lab and natural settings.


No that isn’t macroevolution –that is just a useless attempt to patch over a very big problem.




The term macroevolution is, in general,  used to refer to an any large morphological changes.  Typically, this means changes at the species level, but sometimes my refer to the class or higher level.  

When one looks at the work done within developmental biology, it becomes obvious that despite large changes in the morphology of different populations, there is an amazing similarity among the underlying genetic structures. For example, the the basic body plan of organism is highly dependent on how the hox genes are expressed during development.  As you can imagine, these genes tend to be conserved over time since changes in them can lead to dynamic morphological changes.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 2:50 PM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:52 PM on August 22, 2009 :
Fencer27
My apologies, I did not notice this reply before!Hope you're still around.


I'm still around, been busy lately so I haven't posted much recently. Don't really remember this conversation, LOL, I'll try to post something on this later tonight or tomorrow evening.


-------
"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: 10:39 PM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:52 PM on August 22, 2009 :

Thirdly, a high school student doesn't have the knowledge or understanding to criticize any scientific theory.


You sound like the clergy of the Roman Catholic church talking about the congregation. The problem is that evolutionists don’t think that the average educated layman has the knowledge or understanding to criticize either. Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark!


I was just reading over the post and thought I would give my two cents on this subject, and I'll try to write on the rest tomorrow.

How many high school students do you think are "educated laymen" in the field of biology, paleontology, astronomy, geology ect.? I can tell you now first hand the answer is none with very few exceptions. The vast majority of high school students don't know anything about science. They don't have the training, knowledge or competence to really support either one.

I was odd in that two friends and I talked about it amongst ourselves. Although none of us had any real good arguments for either side, and it must have been torture for the teachers who heard us drivel on like morons. But it was fun, and things got interesting starting half way through junior year; we were starting to have actual arguments instead of insane "bananas prove God" type arguments.  

I think creationism would be an effective tool to show how pseudo-science works, but I don't think that's what you mean by 'teach the controversy' somehow.

Post 123!

(Edited by Fencer27 8/22/2009 at 11:20 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: 11:19 PM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:52 PM on August 22, 2009 :


Even Behe said that ID is no more science than astrology in a court of law under oath.


I’d love to see that quote in context. Care to dig it up for me?



Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.


Kitzmiller vs Dover Trial Documents

Day 11 pm, Cross Examination


-------
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: 11:46 PM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum

despite large changes in the morphology of different populations, there is an amazing similarity among the underlying genetic structures. For example, the the basic body plan of organism is highly dependent on how the hox genes are expressed during development.


The problem here is that evolutionists assume that this implies a common ancestor. Creationists believe that this is proof of a common designer and greater similarities in genetics is akin to a similar recipe of proteins and necessary structures.
Where did the code come from? It is not just chemistry.


-------
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: 03:18 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Fencer,
Thanks for getting back to me -took me so long to notice this response of yours from July -apologies. How do you notice if you're not really posting much? Is there a way of having notice of any replies to a topic sent to you?

How many high school students do you think are "educated laymen" in the field of biology, paleontology, astronomy, geology ect.? I can tell you now first hand the answer is none with very few exceptions.


I think you didn't quite get my point here. What I was saying was in response to your contention that high school students were not in a position to make any educated decisions about anything. I then went on to say that not even educated lay people (beyond the high school level) were considered by 'scientists' to be in a position to evaluate the evidence; which made them effectively like the upper echelons of the church deciding what people have to think and putting them beyond the common man in an unhealthy sort of a way.

The vast majority of high school students don't know anything about science. They don't have the training, knowledge or competence to really support either one.


Often the teachers don't either. It can make for very interesting conversations though and gets kids to think rather than rattle off the so-called 'facts'. Opposition to a majority point of view is not a bad thing -it is a healthy questioning of what can become dogma if untested. If that questioning has no merit, it will fall away on its own as it will be too weak to be maintained as an argument.It's always good to wake people up and make them think!

But it was fun, and things got interesting starting half way through junior year; we were starting to have actual arguments instead of insane "bananas prove God" type arguments.


I know a kid in final year of high school this year that has been battling the odds in a Christian school trying to support creation against the teacher's evolutionary bias. This teacher made comments on his report card to the extent that he was 'disruptive'. It was in complete contrast to all his other subjects where the teachers consistently noted that he was a pleasure to teach and participated enthusiastically. He said that in the beginning of the section on evolution, he was the only one speaking up. Out of class, some of the kids expressed reservations about evolution but never in the class. Now the year is dragging on (our year runs Jan-Dec) and suddenly other kids are starting to participate positively in the debate to the point that the teacher is becoming lost and does not know how to defend  herself and evolution against opposition. Hopefully she will wake up not only to the opposition but also to her own preconceptions. Anyway the subject has become interesting for the kids generally.

I think creationism would be an effective tool to show how pseudo-science works


I think evolutionism would be an effective tool to show how pseudo-science works.

I also think we could all benefit from examining our preconceptions and seeing how they help us to interpet the evidence differently.


-------
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: 04:05 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That’s a story Fencer, like Goldilocks. Actually two crow like birds were found in Post Texas (called Protoavis) dated at 225 million years, about 75 million years older than Archeopteryx. Were they more reptilian than archaeopteryx? No – that would have been nice, but they were fully bird-like (as is Archeopteryx actually) and were around as old as the ‘first’ dinosaurs making a dinosaur-bird transition even less likely than ever.(not that we ever doubted it).


The problem is that the fossil didn't have feathers, and now is apparently bones from several different sorts of organisms.

"[Protoavis] has neither been widely accepted nor seriously considered as a Triassic bird ... [Witmer], who has examined the material and is one of the few workers to have seriously considered Chatterjee’s proposal, argued that the avian status of P. texensis is probably not as clear as generally portrayed by Chatterjee, and further recommended minimization of the role that Protoavis plays in the discussion of avian ancestry."[7]

Chatterjee is one of several ornithologists who claim that birds evolved from thecodonts, which also gave rise to dinosaurs.   It would make them sister taxa, having split off from the same population.  

You're quite wrong about Archaeopteryx being fully birdlike.   The hands, spine, ribs, tail, pelvis, teeth, and skull, for example are more dinosaur-like than birdlike.   It's why some creationists for a while argued that it was a dinosaur with feathers somehow forged.   It is so dinosaur-like, that a specimen without preserved feather prints was so classified for a time.

But that's not what evolution says or even predicts. Every step must be either beneficial or neutral to the fitness of the organism/population.


So far that's the case, in bird evolution.   Each step shows a viable animal.

So are you saying that a liver or a wing popped up in one step or are you saying that we just haven’t found the transitional forms yet?


Since we have evidence for the gradual evolution of both, the "popping up" theory is dead.  Would you like to learn about one or both of them?

You’re watching too much science fiction! We‘re actually all humans, created as humans and on a downhill slide. That is where mutations are taking us.


Would you like to learn about some useful new mutations in humans?

Evolution doesn’t work like that.The theory is superior to and precedes the evidence.


That's not quite right.   A viable theory must make predictions that are later confirmed by evidence.   For example, evolutionary theory predicted transitionals between whales and ungulates, lizards and snakes, and frogs and salamanders.

And later, each of those predictions was validated.  Want to learn about those?   Such validations are necessary to confirm the theory as true.

No amount of evidence to the contrary makes evolution less plausible in the evolutionist’s eyes.


What do you think the best evidence against evolution might be?   The lack of such evidence is what turned most scientists to evolution.

They have a faith that surpasses all understanding.


Test that belief by asking a scientist why he accepts evoluton.   If he cites evidence, you're wrong.

The simplest cell today is far more complex than the first cell.


That would seem to be another confirmation of evolution, but the first cells we can find seem to be cyanobacteria.  




(Edited by Yehren 8/23/2009 at 06:01 AM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 06:00 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, that’s the story. In practice, unicellular organisms have barely changed in more than 600 million years! It’s because they’re happy you see.


Fit.   When an organism is well-fitted to its envirionment, it doesn't change much.

True but by fully formed I mean for example that when fish appear, no matter where, they are recognizably fish, all of a sudden in the fossil record –no signs of how they came to be fish.


Let's test your belief.  What are the absolute minimum requirements for a living thing to be a fish?

That guess would be based on a belief in evolution. My guess is that you won’t find them. Bats are bats, dinosaurs are dinosaurs, very recognizable specific kinds and they come from nowhere according to the fossil record if you look at it completely objectively and drop your hopeful little evolutionary glasses.


Let's test that belief.    By what characters do you distinguish dinosaurs from thecodonts?

Well that’s a completely convenient way of saying that if the level of C14 isn’t to my liking, it must be one of the available rationalizations to blame. Why is there still measurable C14 still in ‘millions of years’ old diamonds?

C14 is produced when ionizing radiation strikes nitrogen atoms.   Diamonds are found in a matrix that includes radioactive sources, and so far, no diamond without nitrogen atoms in the carbon lattice has been found to have C14.   So that's pretty obvious.

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 06:12 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:18 AM on August 23, 2009 :
Mustrum

despite large changes in the morphology of different populations, there is an amazing similarity among the underlying genetic structures. For example, the the basic body plan of organism is highly dependent on how the hox genes are expressed during development.


The problem here is that evolutionists assume that this implies a common ancestor. Creationists believe that this is proof of a common designer and greater similarities in genetics is akin to a similar recipe of proteins and necessary structures.
Where did the code come from? It is not just chemistry.


Of course, you are ignoring the rest of the story to pretend hox genes demonstrate a common, supernatural creator.  We know, that is it is a fact, that the Earth is 4 and some billion years old, that life began on the Earth some 3 billion or so years ago, and that organisms have changed over that time period.  It is also a fact that genetics works in such a way so that variations in the genetic structure occur and are passed down from one generation to the next.  The modern synthesis (evolution) is the best theory we have to explain all of this.  

Creationism denies even the most basic facts.  The only way its proponents can sell it to the rubes is through lies and distortions.

Also, DNA is "just chemistry."  If you can demonstrate that something else, some supernatural woo-woo or whatever, is involved, then please do.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:29 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course, you are ignoring the rest of the story to pretend hox genes demonstrate a common, supernatural creator.  We know, that is it is a fact, that the Earth is 4 and some billion years old


No, we don’t. The dates were given to the geological column long before radiometric dating. Only the odd radiometric date that happens to correlate is used. The majority of dating is done via index fossils. Index fossils are dated according to the hypothetical geological column. It’s a circle of baloney. Radiometric dating is based on a whole list of assumptions. It does not work when tested against known dates. It is NOT a fact, or anything near it for that matter. It is in effect a fantabulous fairy tale.

that life began on the Earth some 3 billion or so years ago


If the radiometric dating is right which it appears not to be.

and that organisms have changed over that time period.




The only thing that fossils can really tell us is that things died. Try looking at fossil clams and fossil jellyfish and see how much change there has been over this hypothetical hundreds of millions of years. It’s an excuse to say that they were well adapted to their environment while others were clearly so badly adapted that they evolved all the way to man. It really is a ridiculous fairy tale trying to pass for science.

It is also a fact that genetics works in such a way so that variations in the genetic structure occur and are passed down from one generation to the next.  


Within limits yes.

Creationism denies even the most basic facts.  


No, actually it allows for the most basic facts. There is no gradualism in the fossil record. There are large systematic gaps that can be explained by creation but which defy evolution.Go to a natural history museum, Mustrum. Ask to see all  the transitionals. See if they look transitional. Keep your eye on the big picture. Take off the evo glasses.Remain objective. It’ll be an interesting experiment.

Also, DNA is "just chemistry."  


No DNA is coded information. It tells the cell what proteins to make and in what quantities they are needed and where they are needed. It is not chemistry. If you weren’t so evolutionized, it would be as plain as the nose on your face.  



-------
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: 10:56 AM on August 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're quite wrong about Archaeopteryx being fully birdlike.   The hands, spine, ribs, tail, pelvis, teeth, and skull, for example are more dinosaur-like than birdlike.


If you put a whole bunch of fossilized bird skeletons together and line them up with archaeopteryx mixed in you would never guess which one is supposedly reptilian as they are very similar indeed.

As for the teeth, meat eating dinosaurs have serrated teeth, archaeopteryx teeth are smooth indicating that it is simply a unique characteristic of that bird. Each kind of modern bird is unique as well. There are other birds that have teeth, by the way.

The skull is birdlike.

The tail is just long in comparison to the rest of its body. Their tails have been compared to the tails of meat eating dinosaurs. The only difference is that the tails of meat eating dinosaurs  are 4-5 feet long and covered with scales while archaeopteyx’ tail is 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers.

Since we have evidence for the gradual evolution of both, the "popping up" theory is dead.  Would you like to learn about one or both of them?


That’s not what I’ve heard so please enlighten me. (The evolution of a liver and a wing)

Would you like to learn about some useful new mutations in humans?


Mutations cause loss of information but can be useful in certain circumstances (usually limited) –I’d love to see the mutations that add new information. But I’ll be happy to see your examples of loss of information as well. Thanks.

For example, evolutionary theory predicted transitionals between whales and ungulates, lizards and snakes, and frogs and salamanders.

And later, each of those predictions was validated.  Want to learn about those?  


Wow you seem to know about more transitionals than the curators of the major natural history museums in America –I’d love to learn about them.

Such validations are necessary to confirm the theory as true.


Inventive validations are also necessary if you want to keep the theory of evolution alive despite the general state of the fossil evidence. But I’m always interested to see what you can come up with.

What do you think the best evidence against evolution might be?  


The state of the fossil evidence?
The lack of such evidence is what turned most scientists to evolution.

Evo scientists are a very optimistic lot. Either they haven’t seen the general state of the fossil evidence for themselves OR they are deceiving themselves into thinking that the evidence will be forthcoming and will carry on that way until cows can fly. The evidence is not as important to evolutionists as they would have us believe.

Test that belief by asking a scientist why he accepts evoluton.


I know that most of them accept it because that is what they were taught and it doesn’t occur to them that learned people before them could have been deceived by philosophy. Every scientist has their little niche where they are the expert. The general picture, they assume, supports evolution. A lot is hidden from the fledgling biologist. Certainly a lot was hidden from me - and according to Behe, he was ‘angry’ when he was first exposed to a mass of evidence against the theory of evolution that never came up (but should have) when he was studying for his degree. If you are exposed to that evidence and still believe in evolution, it can only be because you prefer to believe it not because the evidence for evolution compelled you to accept it.

Test that belief by asking a scientist why he accepts evoluton.   If he cites evidence, you're wrong.


If he cites selective evidence while ignoring the big picture even after it is presented to him, chances are his choice is philosophical and he just hasn’t realized it yet.

The simplest cell today is far more complex than the first cell.
That would seem to be another confirmation of evolution


Unfortunately you inadvertently lifted that quote from somebody else. The simplest cell today is probably as complex as it ever was in the past. It is only the theory of evolution that assumes increasing complexity.
Fit.   When an organism is well-fitted to its envirionment, it doesn't change much.


Well that’s where we differ you see. We say they are basically unchanged because they can only change within limits of ‘kind’ and the other organisms that don’t exist today, went extinct. The reason they are unchanged is not just because only a few thousands years have passed, but also because they haven’t the capability to change in the way that evolutionists imagine they can. For us, natural selection is a conservative force. For evolutionists, it is a creative type of a force that causes greater and greater complexity to ‘emerge.’

Let's test your belief.  What are the absolute minimum requirements for a living thing to be a fish?


I don’t know what the minimum requirements would be for an evolutionist because remember we don’t believe that invertebrates changed into fish. A fish is a vertebrate –it has hard parts/bones inside and flesh outside as opposed to the invertebrates’ characteristics.
Let's test that belief.    By what characters do you distinguish dinosaurs from thecodonts?


Tell me please.

(Diamonds are found in a matrix that includes radioactive sources) and so far, no diamond without nitrogen atoms in the carbon lattice has been found to have C14.


What exactly are you trying to say here?




-------
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: 07:32 AM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:32 AM on August 27, 2009 :
You're quite wrong about Archaeopteryx being fully birdlike.   The hands, spine, ribs, tail, pelvis, teeth, and skull, for example are more dinosaur-like than birdlike.


If you put a whole bunch of fossilized bird skeletons together and line them up with archaeopteryx mixed in you would never guess which one is supposedly reptilian as they are very similar indeed.

As for the teeth, meat eating dinosaurs have serrated teeth, archaeopteryx teeth are smooth indicating that it is simply a unique characteristic of that bird. Each kind of modern bird is unique as well. There are other birds that have teeth, by the way.

The skull is birdlike.

The tail is just long in comparison to the rest of its body. Their tails have been compared to the tails of meat eating dinosaurs. The only difference is that the tails of meat eating dinosaurs  are 4-5 feet long and covered with scales while archaeopteyx’ tail is 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers.



Hey Lester, what modern birds have teeth and long tails?  Hum...

By the way, the teeth of Archie are not that dissimilar to those of non-avian theropods like microraptor, see
here.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:11 AM on August 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Lester, what modern birds have teeth and long tails?  Hum...


Well Mustrum, actually no living birds have socketed teeth but some fossil birds do but they, like archaeopteryx, are extinct. Did you know that some reptiles have teeth and some don't? So the presence or absence of teeth is not particularly important in distinguishing the two groups.

As for long tails, archaeopteryx does have a long tail compared to modern birds but their tails are far more closely related to other birds than they are to the very long scaly tails of the meat eating dinosaurs that evolutionists would like to link them to. Different birds have different distinguishing features, the long tail is one of archaeopteryx' distinguishing features but it still has feathers, wings and a beak -so it's a bird!

By the way, the teeth of Archie are not that dissimilar to those of non-avian theropods like microraptor


And in light of what I've noted above, your point is...



-------
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: 03:35 AM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you put a whole bunch of fossilized bird skeletons together and line them up with archaeopteryx mixed in you would never guess which one is supposedly reptilian as they are very similar indeed.


What fossil bird has no beak, a reptilian tail, reptilian ribs, spine, hips, and legs?

If Archie was any more like a dinosaur, he'd be classified as a dinosaur.   In fact, one specimen (without feather impressions) was actually classified that way until one with feathers was found.

As for the teeth, meat eating dinosaurs have serrated teeth,


Some did.  Compsognathus (the dinosaur most like Archie) had teeth almost exactly like those of an Archaeopteryx.



Top is Compsognathis, next Archie, then a modern bird.

The skull is birdlike.


See above.  Which two look most alike to you?

[quoteThe tail is just long in comparison to the rest of its body.


No kidding.   It's tail is like that of a dinosaur.   Birds have a tiny pygostyle, a mere button of a tail.

Their tails have been compared to the tails of meat eating dinosaurs.


Let's take a look.   Skeletons of Archie, Compsognathus, and a bird:


Surprise.

So are you saying that a liver or a wing popped up in one step or are you saying that we just haven’t found the transitional forms yet?


Barbarian observes:
Since we have evidence for the gradual evolution of both, the "popping up" theory is dead.  Would you like to learn about one or both of them?

That’s not what I’ve heard


You hadn't heard it was wrong for Christians to steal the writing of other people, either.  

so please enlighten me. (The evolution of a liver and a wing)


Let's take a look:


Surprise.   Livers later.   Got to look up the terminology in the early chordates.

Barbarian asks:
Would you like to learn about some useful new mutations in humans?

Mutations cause loss of information


No, that's wrong.  In fact, one can show mathematically that any new mutation will increase the information in a population.   Would you like to see that?

I’d love to see the mutations that add new information.


They all do.   The information level of any gene locus is the sum of the frequencies of all the different alleles times the log of the frequency of each, times minus one.

But I’ll be happy to see your examples of loss of information as well.


That would happen whenever an allele disappeared from a population.   In extreme cases, when only one is left, it's called "fixation."

Barbarian observes:
For example, evolutionary theory predicted transitionals between whales and ungulates, lizards and snakes, and frogs and salamanders.

And later, each of those predictions was validated.  Want to learn about those?  

Wow you seem to know about more transitionals than the curators of the major natural history museums in America


I don't think so.  Most of them have such exhibits in the museums.  The Florida Museum of Natural History, for example, has a very nice set of horse skeletons showing the gradual changes from Hyracotherium to Equus.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm

I’d love to learn about them.


Try the link.   I'll take you through the gradual changes step by step, if you like.

Barbarian observes:
What do you think the best evidence against evolution might be?  

The state of the fossil evidence?


Then you're out of luck.   As the link shows, gradual evolution of horses is abundantly demonstrated.

I know that most of them accept it because that is what they were taught and it doesn’t occur to them that learned people before them could have been deceived by philosophy.


Science works only on evidence.   Philosophy won't help you.   To impress a scientist, you need some evidence.

Every scientist has their little niche where they are the expert. The general picture, they assume, supports evolution.


There's a way to test that, too.   Go to one of the cult sites that features a list of "Scientists who doubt Darwin."   You'll quickly see that the list is filled with people who don't have any expertise in biology.

A lot is hidden from the fledgling biologist.


Since you've shown us time after time, you have no understanding of biology, you'd have no way of knowing.

Certainly a lot was hidden from me - and according to Behe, he was ‘angry’ when he was first exposed to a mass of evidence against the theory of evolution that never came up (but should have) when he was studying for his degree.


Odd then, that Behe thinks that evolution is a fact.  And he testified in the Dover trial that "intelligent design" was a science in the same sense that astrology is science.  

The simplest cell today is far more complex than the first cell.


Barbarian observes:
That would seem to be another confirmation of evolution

The simplest cell today is probably as complex as it ever was in the past.


No.  The oldest cells are all prokaryotes, which are much, much less complex than eukaryotes.  

It is only the theory of evolution that assumes increasing complexity.


Barbarian observes:
Fitness.   When an organism is well-fitted to its envirionment, it doesn't change much.

Well that’s where we differ you see.


That's because you don't know what you're talking about.   We can show organisms well-fitted to their environment, and we see stabilizing selection, and they don't change much.   Then, if we change the environment, we see rapid change.  

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your belief.  What are the absolute minimum requirements for a living thing to be a fish?

I don’t know what the minimum requirements would be for an evolutionist


Then man up and tell us what your absolute minimum requirements are.

A fish is a vertebrate –it has hard parts/bones inside and flesh outside as opposed to the invertebrates’ characteristics.


So a shark isn't a vertebrate?   And cuttlefish are?   Try again.  

(Claim that dinosaurs did not evolve from other things)

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test that belief.    By what characters do you distinguish dinosaurs from thecodonts?

Tell me please.


If you don't know anything about it, how do you know you're right?

(Diamonds are found in a matrix that includes radioactive sources) and so far, no diamond without nitrogen atoms in the carbon lattice has been found to have C14.

What exactly are you trying to say here?


The evidence shows C-14 in diamonds is being slowly produced by radiation acting on nitrogen atoms in the crystal.   That's how we get C-14.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 11:01 PM on August 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:52 PM on August 22, 2009 :
No we don’t actually. Those are only hopeful would be transitionals needed to keep evolution looking possible. They might very well be simply extinct animals, nothing to do with whales. There’s a lot of wishful thinking that goes on in the evolution field. Evolutionists need whale intermediates –so they find them.


Not much to say without going into detail, but you're wrong.

To name some of the very few questionable ones that are paraded before us regularly you mean.There should be tens of thousands of unquestionable intermediates lining the museum shelves but instead they are few, far between and always extremely questionable.


Fossilized specimens are rare, but every one is a transitional, including you!  

In particular ask to see the transitionals leading up to the Cambrian invertebrates and the invertebrate/fish intermediates.


You are aware they have some fossils before the Cambrian right?

Remember there are billions of invertebrates and billions of fish so the intermediates shouldn’t be anything less than well-represented and clearly intermediate.


And we have explored so much of those very peaceful, never violent, shallow oceans with never refreshing ocean crust.

But if they don’t know how the genetic system got there, how can they know that one kind of creature can turn into another?


You don't need to know how DNA, or the first life got there, we know that life and DNA is here and what it does once it is here. It doesn't matter if abiogenesis is correct, or God magically conjured everything from dirt, or even if demon hyenas from Nibiru planted life here from the 8th dimension, it doesn't matter.

Most of the variation is built in to the original kind, not brought about by mutations.


And how do you explain traits that have more than 4 alleles of variability?

The problem is that the mutation that was beneficial in one particular environment makes it generally less fit when it goes back to the original parent population and it is unable to compete as effectively as those without that mutation.


I honestly don't remember this part of the conversation. Is it about resistant bacteria?

That’s a story Fencer, like Goldilocks. Actually two crow like birds were found in Post Texas (called Protoavis) dated at 225 million years, about 75 million years older than Archeopteryx. Were they more reptilian than archaeopteryx? No – that would have been nice, but they were fully bird-like (as is Archeopteryx actually) and were around as old as the ‘first’ dinosaurs making a dinosaur-bird transition even less likely than ever.(not that we ever doubted it).


Of course, archeopteryx is completely a modern bird. ;)

So are you saying that a liver or a wing popped up in one step or are you saying that we just haven’t found the transitional forms yet?


Neither, you just don't understand what evolution says.

We are all mutants!


You’re watching too much science fiction! We‘re actually all humans, created as humans and on a downhill slide. That is where mutations are taking us.


Each human has 128 mutations from birth, we are all mutants. Mutations have made humans better able to live in the environment in which they are originally from (like white from Europe, black from Africa ect.).

Evolution doesn’t work like that.The theory is superior to and precedes the evidence. No amount of evidence to the contrary makes evolution less plausible in the evolutionist’s eyes. They have a faith that surpasses all understanding.


The theory is subject to the evidence, if the theory doesn't fit the evidence than the theory must change, or be thrown out. So far, evolution hasn't been falsified by the evidence.

No, that’s the story. In practice, unicellular organisms have barely changed in more than 600 million years! It’s because they’re happy you see.


Right, do you have any evidence for this?

That’s also a story, Fencer. You must really start noticing the difference between the fact and the fiction. Anyway, you said yourself that abiogenesis is not part of evolution so you can just ignore that problem.


No one is ignoring the problem, you just can't differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis because you don't want to let any doubt in your head that tells you that you are not interpreting the Bible correctly in Genesis. In doing so you think that if the Bible is not the inherent word of God there is no basis for your faith and you must abandon that faith so you stay away from it. But the fact is that God, the Bible, evolution and abiogenesis can co-exist peacefully.

Saying that purely natural law and chemical attractions caused life to 'emerge' is just as philosophical but that doesn’t stop the evolutionist from forcing their opinion down everybody’s throat at tax payer’s expense. So why don’t we dump the evolution and just stick with the observable science?


Science says that because there is no hard evidence for the supernatural, so there is no reason to say that the supernatural did anything or even to say that it exists from a purely scientific standpoint. Science is completely objective and is not promoting any religion.

Also when the L-amino acids in humans start converting to a 50:50 mix of left and right forms, then death is occurring.


I know there is an answer but I don't remember it, and I'm not sure what all has been posted here, so if no one has answered this I'll try and look for the article.

And forcing naturalism as the only allowed explanation isn’t productive either so let’s kick all that philosophy out and keep science scientific.


Naturalism is the only explanation allowed because that is all we can test through science. But science isn't saying this is how the first cell came about, only this is the best plausible explanation we have now. If we were to be scientific we would have to automatically count out any God because we have never objectively seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched any of them. We have never observed God create life from dirt, or anything ex nihilo ect.

Well these genetic algorithms are devised by humans after all. Humans with bias. Evolutionists. Garbage in, garbage out as the saying goes.


Only that these computers have no bias. You remind me of the three monkeys; see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Now just replace evil with evidence for evolution.

You’re dreaming. No more than a computer’s existence can be explained without a designer or a manufacturer. In short, an organizer of parts.


Only we see humans creating computers, no magic being creating life.

I’m thinking you mean better than those designed by God or than those evolved by natural law?


Nope, I mean when those algorithms are put up against human designs the human design or strategy looses. Like when they did a genetic algorithm for military scenarios. When the algorithm was done they pitted it against some of the best military tacticians in the world, and guess who won by a landslide? The algorithm.

But what if that explanation that you accept is plausible but false?


It happens all the time, like the geocentric model. As more evidence is revealed we change our ideas. There is nothing bad about being wrong in science, only when you refuse to admit that you are wrong when the evidence doesn't match your model.

Saying that God might have created life does not turn science into theology.


Yes it does because there is no scientific evidence for God, so saying that God did this is not science but theology.

Do you get heavier the more you store information in your head? Have you weighed a CD before and after adding information? If you wipe your hard drive, does your computer weigh less?


It is not that there is more matter, but how that matter is configured.

No, but polypeptides line up due to information on the DNA –it’s coded information. Where did it come from? Not from chemistry.


I'm afraid it is chemistry, what specifically can't be explained by chemistry? Exactly what part of transcription or translation or anything else can't be explained by chemistry?

Lets say that it did happen via supernatural means. What then, what does it explain, how does it better man-kind?


We have a purpose, we are created. We are not a random accident of nature. There is a reason we are here and we should try to find out why?


So it doesn't explain anything, and it doesn't really benefit mankind. After all Hitler thought that he was on a mission from God and killed millions. Yeah, he obviously made the world a better place.

Inflated self-images can be nice, but when non grounded in reality can turn into night terrors.

True but by fully formed I mean for example that when fish appear, no matter where, they are recognizably fish, all of a sudden in the fossil record –no signs of how they came to be fish...Occasionally they find something that is most likely just an extinct creature and they rush to place it between this and that assuming evolution.


We know evolution is correct because we see it happening today. It is not something we assume because we want to, it is because that is what the evidence suggests.

Precisely. It (big bang) is a creation story designed in fact to replace creation by God. It requires faith.


It doesn't replace God. And it doesn't require faith, CMB and redshift essentially confirm the basic idea of big bang. Besides many Christians, including one of the Popes, claims the big bang as proof of God, saying there is scientific evidence of the point of creation.

It is every bit as scientific as evolution – more so in fact as the theory correlates better with the evidence.


You haven't been able to provide any evidence for creation if I recall on the thread I started for you, and any other creationists on here, to show us the evidence for creation. If I missed something bring it up.

Actually there is, they just don’t receive tax funded grants as they are not the favoured religion.


So where is the research of "creation scientists"?

But they do. They support evolution despite the unobservable, unrepeatable purely religious and philosophical nature of naturalism.They don’t know that it’s true but they fund all the research that attempts to prove that it’s possible while neglecting completely the only possible alternative, that of creation.


But evolution doesn't say that there is no supernatural, while the methodology is closely aligned with naturalism, it doesn't say that naturalism is correct.

And by saying that creationism should be taught in school, you are saying you want special exemption from the constitution because you know that creationism is religious.  

It’s the Scopes trial turned on it’s head' and creation is now the explanation for origins being suppressed.


That is because the evidence supports evolution and doesn't support creationism.

Even Behe said that ID is no more science than astrology in a court of law under oath.


I’d love to see that quote in context. Care to dig it up for me?


I believe someone else already has, have fun!

Well that’s a completely convenient way of saying that if the level of C14 isn’t to my liking, it must be one of the available rationalizations to blame. Why is there still measurable C14 still in ‘millions of years’ old diamonds? I’m not talking about a trace, I’m talking about enough to make a case for a young earth?


I'm no expert, but didn't C14 come from different things, and is constantly being renewed in the ground and atmosphere.

It doesn’t give accurate dates over about 1500 years I hear. That’s according to checking with known dates. It tends to give dates that are too old. That is, no doubt, because of all the same suppositions that are used generally in radiometric dating.


Depending on the method you can date things for billions of years. Like C14 is good for 50,000
if I'm not mistaken, and others like some isotopes of uranium to lead have half lives of billions of years.

Well I don’t want to soil/ spoil? a cheery moment either but maybe you just didn’t realize that your choice to accept evolution is also philosophical.


I mean soil, as to make things dirty or ruin something. Accepting evolution wasn't philosophical, there are philosophical implications in certain areas, but the choice itself wasn't philosophical.

No, you don’t understand. There will always be an elastic excuse on offer. There are so many things out of order and they get called overthrust, downwashed, uplifted, rearranged or even screwed over –it’s all scientific.


Not if you find bunnies in the Cambrian, or kangaroos, or any modern animal, even things like dinosaurs found a billion years ago would be falsifying evolution.

Macro evolution is one species changing into another species, which we have observed in both the lab and natural settings.


No that isn’t macroevolution –that is just a useless attempt to patch over a very big problem.


No that is the scientific definition of macro evolution, you just don't like the real definition so creationists make up their own elastic definition to better suit their unsupported ideas.


-------
"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: 02:52 AM on August 30, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:05 AM on August 23, 2009 :
Hi Fencer,
Thanks for getting back to me -took me so long to notice this response of yours from July -apologies. How do you notice if you're not really posting much? Is there a way of having notice of any replies to a topic sent to you?


Not that I know of, I usually look on this site once or twice a week and noticed you posted to this. I'm trying to get in as much fun as possible before school starts, which for me is Monday. And once school starts no one knows how much time I'll have to be on forums like this.

How many high school students do you think are "educated laymen" in the field of biology, paleontology, astronomy, geology ect.? I can tell you now first hand the answer is none with very few exceptions.


I think you didn't quite get my point here. What I was saying was in response to your contention that high school students were not in a position to make any educated decisions about anything. I then went on to say that not even educated lay people (beyond the high school level) were considered by 'scientists' to be in a position to evaluate the evidence; which made them effectively like the upper echelons of the church deciding what people have to think and putting them beyond the common man in an unhealthy sort of a way.


I don't think it is really "unhealthy". It takes years of intense studying to have the background knowledge to understand what real scientists are doing. Even the best educated laymen has nothing when compared to a real scientist. A kid really doesn't have the knowledge or experience to make informed decisions about these things and most adults don't either.

Often the teachers don't either. It can make for very interesting conversations though and gets kids to think rather than rattle off the so-called 'facts'. Opposition to a majority point of view is not a bad thing -it is a healthy questioning of what can become dogma if untested. If that questioning has no merit, it will fall away on its own as it will be too weak to be maintained as an argument.It's always good to wake people up and make them think!


However evolution has been challenged for over a hundred years by professionals and none of them could bring evolution down. While I agree that making students think rather than spitting out facts is productive, making them question sound scientific pieces of literature is not the way to do it. Would you like the hollow Earth people, or the expanding Earth people, or the geocentrists to flood the school with their BS as an alternative to the scientific consensus? Why not add aether as a sound alternative in astronomy class, or pangenesis in biology class, or the five elements of Greek philosophy in chemistry?

I know a kid in final year of high school this year that has been battling the odds in a Christian school trying to support creation against the teacher's evolutionary bias. This teacher made comments on his report card to the extent that he was 'disruptive'. It was in complete contrast to all his other subjects where the teachers consistently noted that he was a pleasure to teach and participated enthusiastically.


That really doesn't surprise me, people act differently in different classes, as well as what is being taught that day. He probably was a pleasure in biology class until evolution came up. In astronomy class a Muslim spoke up almost every class (when he showed up) saying that God did everything and scientists don't know what they're talking about. While I was happy to converse with him, the classroom is not the place to do it, and he was disruptive. Interestingly enough, I have never seen a student confront a teacher on the issue of evolution. The closest was the Muslim in astronomy, but the teacher was an astronomy teacher, not a biologist; and he didn't confront the teacher with it, it was more to the entire class.

He said that in the beginning of the section on evolution, he was the only one speaking up. Out of class, some of the kids expressed reservations about evolution but never in the class. Now the year is dragging on (our year runs Jan-Dec) and suddenly other kids are starting to participate positively in the debate to the point that the teacher is becoming lost and does not know how to defend  herself and evolution against opposition. Hopefully she will wake up not only to the opposition but also to her own preconceptions. Anyway the subject has become interesting for the kids generally.


At least the kids are engaged in school, however misguided their quest is.

I think evolutionism would be an effective tool to show how pseudo-science works.


Perhaps you should make a thread and show us all how that works out exactly.

I also think we could all benefit from examining our preconceptions and seeing how they help us to interpet the evidence differently.


Interesting concept, but I doubt too many people would take the time to do that, or even know where to begin.


-------
"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: 03:27 AM on August 30, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 09:27 AM on August 30, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 04:05 AM on August 23, 2009 :
Is there a way of having notice of any replies to a topic sent to you?


Not that I know of,

You can subscribe to tpoics, there is a link in the top right quarter of your screen. You can also manage your subscriptions by choosing the 'manage subscriptions' option from the profile link.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 09:42 AM on August 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer 27 -thought I'd answer a couple of  points rather than your entire reply since it sounds like your time is going to be more limited.

Science is completely objective and is not promoting any religion.


You’re dreaming Fencer. Science is supposed to be completely objective but in reality scientists are just people like everybody else and the interpretation of the  evidence is colored by their bias. A religion is a belief about the past that cannot be observed  or falsified since it is a once off event. Evolution is a belief system. It cannot be observed to happen, it can only be imagined to have happened. If you think speciation is a good enough demo of macromutation, well then you’re easily convinced or you’re just happy to believe whatever is popular.

Science says that because there is no hard evidence for the supernatural


Neither is there hard evidence that natural processes alone created life.

Naturalism is the only explanation allowed because that is all we can test through science.


The evolution creation question is not about how the world works. Given that the world works in the way it does, this says nothing about whether it originated in the same way.
A little parable by Carl Wieland of CMI told of two scientific fleas living in a motor-car, pondering how it came to be. One insisted that, since it was the most logical conclusion from the evidence, the car was not made by processes operating in the car. The other demanded that such religious ideas not be brought into the flea schools, because science could only deal with the sorts of processes observable and operating today. To propose a maker who could not now be seen, and a process of making that was no longer operating, was by definition unscientific in spite of the fact that it happened to be true! This flea was locking the investigation into the belief that the way the world WORKS is also the way it ORIGINATED. He believed that anything else was breaking the rules of science. Hadn’t their science developed by means of studying only the present-day, naturally occurring processes in the car? His ‘rules’, of course, meant that it became impossible for him to deduce logically the correct explanation in the case of the car.
Doesn’t the scientific endeavour have a lot to do with the search for truth? If our study of the way the world works is not trying to get us closer to the truth, then what is the point of doing science at all? When we study origins scientifically, aren’t we trying to get as close as possible to the details of what really happened? (even though the scientific method cannot ultimately prove or disprove matters related to origins since they involve the unrepeatable, unobservable past). Evolutionists eliminate one possible conclusion by definition before we even start to look at the evidence, never mind that it may be true. This exclusion of a possibly true explanation is based on a belief (non-provable, metaphysical, religious) that the way the world works is the way it originated.
The evo flea in the parable of the motor car has locked himself into a research framework which forces him to come up with evolutionary (self-made) explanation even though no observed process operating in the car was building new cars. The only thing that science is allowed to do,it seems, is to consider which evo models are better than others.

JimIrvine
You can subscribe to topics


Thanks Jim Irvine -I have tried that before but something went wrong. Will try again.


-------
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: 04:59 AM on September 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
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.


Never see anthropomorphic deities making men of dirt, either.


Positive mutation leading to increased information?


Science 27 September 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2253 - 2256

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*

Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene



You lose.



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:46 PM on September 2, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

You might be right!  There might be people who 'believe in evolution'. That would not be a religion because it does not involve belief in any supernatural being, nor does it involve any ritual practices, such as worship, which are characteristic of religion. I reject your definition of religion as any belief in anything that cannot be observed, that is what I would call credulity.

Furthermore, the fact that a few individuals might have adopted evolution as a belief system would not in any way invalidate evolution per se as a scientific hypothesis. That would be something like saying that the existence of a few Sabellians invalidated the whole structure of Christian Theology or that Thomas' Gospel invalidates the Bible.

The dominant voice of Creationism today appears to be that of a religious and  political movement lobbying for change of school science curricula in an attempt to have Christian dogma taught in schools. The very motivation of creationists discredits their claim to scientific authenticity, let alone the utter uselessness of the so-called creation hypothesis which has proven to be scientifically sterile for the whole of its 2500 yr history.

Notwithstanding your ingenuous demand for direct observation of evolution there is, in fact,  
a huge body of observations for which evolution is a very sound and widely supported explanation. Even you have been forced to admit that evolution is directly observable. You have even been forced to admit to speciation by a process of evolution but you either lack the imagination to see or refuse to acknowledge the logically inevitable consequence of extended 'micro' evolution which is that evolution will lead to changes so dramatic that an individual's descendants will eventually be so different as to be what you would call a different 'type'.





-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 01:16 AM on September 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That would not be a religion because it does not involve belief in any supernatural being, nor does it involve any ritual practices, such as worship, which are characteristic of religion.


It does -it's just another form of nature worship -an old religion. Nature is god you see with all it's supposed creativity, thus there is no need for the real creator. It's inside the system rather than external to it. It's a replacement -an idol, pretty much.

I reject your definition of religion as any belief in anything that cannot be observed, that is what I would call credulity.


That comes into the equation -evos are credulous, they believe in what they can't see so they have faith every bit as much as those believing in the Christian God do. The only difference is that they have far less reason for their belief.

lobbying for change of school science curricula in an attempt to have Christian dogma taught in schools.


They only want origins taught fairly. Until there's sufficient reason to believe that nature creates all by itself, both belief systems should be allowed to be presented along with all the evidence. At the very least, the evidence against evolution should be presented alongside the evidence for it for a more balanced perspective. By the way that story of installing a Christian theocracy is just pure garbage invented for the purpose of terrifying evos everywhere into being irrational in defence of their faith.
On the other hand perhaps what they're worried about is that their belief system will be thoroughly discredited in the event that all of the evidence gets to be laid out on the table. That's something to fear.

The very motivation of creationists discredits their claim to scientific authenticity, let alone the utter uselessness of the so-called creation hypothesis which has proven to be scientifically sterile for the whole of its 2500 yr history.


Sounds like you dragged this right off a paranoid deluded inventive evo website. In fact you certainly don't know what you're talking about. Utter uselessness is reserved for the fable telling of evolution.

Even you have been forced to admit that evolution is directly observable.


I definately didn't do that. If I admit that microvariation is a fact and that mutations do occur, that is not to be conflated with a belief that macroevolution is in any way true. It just simply is false.

You have even been forced to admit to speciation by a process of evolution but you either lack the imagination to see or refuse to acknowledge the logically inevitable consequence of extended 'micro' evolution which is that evolution will lead to changes so dramatic that an individual's descendants will eventually be so different as to be what you would call a different 'type'.


Lack imagination? Certainly that may be one of my short comings and in fact it's good to hear you admit that the extended imaginary changes of macroevolution are in fact not scientific but rather are fully founded on imagination. In the absence of evidence for morphological change brought about by an increase in information ie. new trunk, new internal organ, new limb structure, something visible and advantageous, I absolutely have to stick with the solid conviction that such a thing never happened because it is impossible in principle.







-------
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 September 3, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Yehren at 10:01 PM on August 29, 2009 :
If you put a whole bunch of fossilized bird skeletons together and line them up with archaeopteryx mixed in you would never guess which one is supposedly reptilian as they are very similar indeed.


What fossil bird has no beak, a reptilian tail, reptilian ribs, spine, hips, and legs?

If Archie was any more like a dinosaur, he'd be classified as a dinosaur...


Lester, do you have response to Yehren's post? Even a layman can see that Archie is more similar to some dinos than he is to modern birds.

Also, what do you make of all the feathered dinos that have been found in China?




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 9:34 PM on September 3, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:30 AM on September 3, 2009 :
evos are credulous, they believe in what they can't see so they have faith every bit as much as those believing in the Christian God do. The only difference is that they have far less reason for their belief.


Hum...so you would equate the observation, testing and competition of ideas, and rational thinking with religious belief?  Isn't that stretching it a bit?  After all, we can't see gravity any more than we can see evolution.  Both concepts are based on observation and rational thought.  Your argument is the same as saying acceptance of gravity is the same as faith in little imps that push things with mass together.  





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 9:38 PM on September 3, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:59 AM on September 2, 2009 :
Fencer 27 -thought I'd answer a couple of  points rather than your entire reply since it sounds like your time is going to be more limited.


Well it will be limited as I start up school again, but once it is a week or two in I'll hopefully be settled in with a working schedule and have more free time.

You’re dreaming Fencer. Science is supposed to be completely objective but in reality scientists are just people like everybody else and the interpretation of the  evidence is colored by their bias.


A scientist can be biased, but science itself can't, otherwise it isn't science.

A religion is a belief about the past that cannot be observed  or falsified since it is a once off event.


I have a belief that the American Civil War happened, is that also a religious belief? Or is it one based on the observable evidence even though it can never be repeated and was a once off event?

Evolution is a belief system. It cannot be observed to happen, it can only be imagined to have happened. If you think speciation is a good enough demo of macromutation, well then you’re easily convinced or you’re just happy to believe whatever is popular.


What do you think of speciation? And it isn't macromutations, it is a bunch of individual mutations accumulating over time diversifying life to the extent as to make new species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, and domains. And I don't think just because we observe speciation that huge changes, like reptiles into mammals, or dinosaurs into birds. But because we have transitionals, like Archie, and understand things like genetic drift, DNA, heredity, mutations,  meiosis, ect. We can reasonably conclude that macro evolution is valid.

Neither is there hard evidence that natural processes alone created life.


I would say there is evidence for natural processes alone, but there is no evidence to oust divine intervention completely.

The evolution creation question is not about how the world works. Given that the world works in the way it does, this says nothing about whether it originated in the same way.


But to say that we must discount everything we know about how the world works today to find how it originated seems pointless and very time wasting. If the laws were different than today, and since you don't like studying past events through scientific inquiry, anything that you come up with is not based on anything and is only ignorant speculation at best.

A little parable by Carl Wieland of CMI told of two scientific fleas living in a motor-car, pondering how it came to be. One insisted that, since it was the most logical conclusion from the evidence, the car was not made by processes operating in the car. The other demanded that such religious ideas not be brought into the flea schools, because science could only deal with the sorts of processes observable and operating today. To propose a maker who could not now be seen, and a process of making that was no longer operating, was by definition unscientific in spite of the fact that it happened to be true! This flea was locking the investigation into the belief that the way the world WORKS is also the way it ORIGINATED. He believed that anything else was breaking the rules of science. Hadn’t their science developed by means of studying only the present-day, naturally occurring processes in the car? His ‘rules’, of course, meant that it became impossible for him to deduce logically the correct explanation in the case of the car.


I would say that is an inaccurate representation to science. I would prefer a real life example like geocentric versus heliocentric. A few thousand years ago if anyone proposed a heliocentric model people would have thought they were crazy, things clearly revolve around the Earth. All the evidence back then pointed to a geocentric model, so the 'scientific fly' would be for geocentrism while the other fly would be for a heliocentric model. But as we got more (and more accurate) evidence and better instruments to study the heavens, a geocentric model would become obsolete, like the Ptolemy model, and replaced by heliocentrism. That is how science works.

Doesn’t the scientific endeavour have a lot to do with the search for truth? If our study of the way the world works is not trying to get us closer to the truth, then what is the point of doing science at all?


Science is inquiry about the unknown. It strives for truth but it never claims to have truth, this is one big difference in respect to religion. Religion claims truth while science never does.

When we study origins scientifically, aren’t we trying to get as close as possible to the details of what really happened? (even though the scientific method cannot ultimately prove or disprove matters related to origins since they involve the unrepeatable, unobservable past). Evolutionists eliminate one possible conclusion by definition before we even start to look at the evidence, never mind that it may be true. This exclusion of a possibly true explanation is based on a belief (non-provable, metaphysical, religious) that the way the world works is the way it originated.


When scientists study origins they are trying to get as close to the truth as possible, but it is not a bad thing to discount the supernatural from a scientific perspective. While we can do experiments with abiogenesis to put forth a plausible pathway from simple chemicals to proto cells to life. But when you add in religion all you can really say is 'God did it', and you can do no experiments with it what so ever. Beyond throwing out everything we know about natural reality, inputting the idea of magic gets us no where in empirical science.

The evo flea in the parable of the motor car has locked himself into a research framework which forces him to come up with evolutionary (self-made) explanation even though no observed process operating in the car was building new cars.


This is a false analogy, cars don't have any form of genetic material, or an equivalent thing, and it doesn't have mutations or reproduces. But we obviously have observed processes of people making new people.

The only thing that science is allowed to do,it seems, is to consider which evo models are better than others.


In a way you are correct. When creating theories the one that wins correlates the best with the observed evidence and it is a matter of choosing which one fits best.


-------
"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: 1:55 PM on September 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:59 AM on September 2, 2009 :

A little parable by Carl Wieland of CMI . . .


Another parable courtesy of
Joe Meert :
Same Evidence: Different Interpretation

Creationists make the claim that the interpretation of evidence depends upon the 'framework'.  The following excellent tale illustrates the folly of this argument:



   Once upon a time there were two women, Mrs. Morris and Mrs. Field, who were next-door neighbors and best friends. Each had a teenage son, and these boys were also best friends. The boys always went to church, got good grades, were well-behaved towards others, and were obedient and helpful around the house (at least as much as one could reasonably hope for, when it comes to teenage boys). The two women were justifiably happy that their sons were such good
boys.  

    One day when Mrs. Field was visiting Mrs. Morris, some policemen stopped by with bad news. Their boys had been arrested for shoplifting in the mall. A shop security guard had clearly seen the boys sneak several items into their pockets. "Oh no, I'm sure they didn't mean to steal," the women said. "Maybe it was a joke or a dare, but they would have given it back before leaving the store. They don't steal. They're good boys."

   The police explained that the security guard had called the police. When the police searched the boys, they found merchandise from several other stores hidden in their pockets. "There must be some mistake," said Mrs. Field. "Are you sure they didn't pay for that merchandise?" "My boy wouldn't steal," said Mrs. Morris. "He's a good boy."

   The police explained that they had already watched video surveillance tape from the other stores -- tapes made in the hours preceding the boys' arrests. Several of the tapes clearly showed one boy pocketing merchandise while the other boy created a distraction, and then both of them walking out of the stores without paying.

   "Oh dear," said Mrs. Field. "That does sound serious. I can't understand why my boy would steal. I need to talk to him to find out more."

   "No no no," said Mrs. Morris. "My son is a good boy. Good boys don't steal. There must be another way to explain all of this. Maybe it was part of a school project or something. Even if he did walk out of stores without paying for merchandise, which I'm not convinced that he did, he was surely planning to give it back before leaving the mall."

   The police explained that they had already questioned each boy separately. Each boy got scared and tried to shift blame onto the other boy in order to get some leniency. Each boy said that the other boy was the leader and had shop-lifted before. Each boy said that the other boy had bragged about having a stash of stolen merchandise hidden under a pile of spare lumber in his garage. The police asked for permission to search both garages.
 
"Oh yes, we'd better search," said Mrs. Field. "I want to know if it's true that my son has shoplifted." She and one police officer went next door to search the Fields' garage. But Mrs. Morris refused to let the police into her garage, and continued to argue with them.

  A few minutes later Mrs. Field came back, with a police officer holding a bag of merchandise (price tags still on) from various local stores. "It's true," she cried to Mrs. Morris. "I've seen it with my own eyes. You should look in your garage, to find out for sure if your son has been stealing, too."

   "Of course he hasn't," said Mrs. Morris. "My son is a good boy, and good boys don't steal." But Mrs. Field was no-nonsense. She grabbed Mrs. Morris by the
wrist and dragged her to the Morris' garage. "This is for your own good and the good of your son," she said as she pushed the spare lumber aside and revealed another stash of merchandise. "There. You see with your own eyes the evidence that your son has been stealing."

   "This doesn't prove anything. It could have been planted by someone else," said Mrs. Morris. "Or he could have paid for it and was hiding it because he was going to give it to me as a gift. My son is a good boy, and good boys don't steal. Only bad boys steal.

   "I'm not saying that our boys are bad," said Mrs. Field. "A son can be basically good, but still do something wrong once in a while. I still think they're good boys, but it's obvious that they've been doing a little shoplifting, so we've got some serious work to do with them! You're only harming your son by denying the truth."

   "There are only two kinds of boys," said Mrs. Morris. "Bad boys, and good boys. Bad boys steal. Good boys don't. I know my son is a good boy. Ask his pastor. Ask his teachers. Ask all around the neighborhood. He's always been good around me and everyone else. You've said it yourself many times. I've got lots of evidence that my son is a good boy. Therefore, he didn't steal anything."

   "But look at the evidence," said Mrs. Field. "The security guard saw them. They had merchandise in their pockets. They were caught on video tape. Each has obviously hidden stolen merchandise in our garages. The evidence is clear."

   "You don't understand the nature of 'evidence,'" said Mrs. Morris. "All evidence is interpreted by presuppositions. There are two frameworks for interpreting this evidence: a 'bad boy' framework and a 'good boy' framework. The police assume a 'bad boy' framework. They first assume that my boy is bad, and interpret all the evidence within that framework, and so it's no surprise that they conclude that my son has stolen. But I know that the 'bad boy' framework is false. I've got lots of reasons to believe that my son is a good boy. All of this so-called evidence can be interpreted within a 'good boy' framework, just as well as in a 'bad boy'
framework. Since you've concluded that our boys have stolen, you've obviously adopted the police's 'bad boy' framework. But that framework is wrong. Instead, you should do what I do. I can explain all of the evidence with my 'good boy' framework just fine. My son is a good boy. So he didn't steal anything."
===

Loren Haarsma



-------
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: 10:12 PM on September 5, 2009 | IP
Ellman

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester i have a question.
There have been some experiments with speciation (like with Drosophila) where one species has been divided into 2 species. They look very alike, but they cannot reproduce because of sexual isolation. This happened through some few mutations in some genes that made it impossible to make hybrids. Now this is an example of speciation with a rather low amount of generations. Now to the question. If this is possible and they become isolated and cannot hybridize, what is there to stop them from becoming 2 species that doesn't look much alike?
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 4:15 PM on September 6, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum
Lester, do you have response to Yehren's post? Even a layman can see that Archie is more similar to some dinos than he is to modern birds.


Well that's funny, the bird specialist Alan Fedducia said that archeopteryx was a bird, a perching bird and he concluded that 'no amount of paleobabble is going to change that.' Maybe some strange laymen think Archie is more similar to a dino but I can tell you that I agree with the bird specialist -when I look at archie along with a whole bunch of other bird skeletons, you can't see which one is not a bird.

Also, what do you make of all the feathered dinos that have been found in China?


Well these feathered dinos have been criticized by both creationists and evolutionists. Apparently these 'feathered dinosaurs' are more likely flightless birds. The feathers of flightless birds today are as reduced in structure as these are. They are symmetric feathers like those of birds that are flightless.
Those who believe that these fossils are birds base their interpretation on the anatomy of the feathers and the size of the wings. Those who consider them to be dinosaurs with feathers base their conclusions on the fact that some have teeth and some have dinosaur-like features, like a long tail.

The other problem is that these fossils are supposed to have lived 25 million years after the earliest bird, archie -so how could these
'feathered dinosaurs' be the ancestors of birds if they lived after Archie, a bird that could already fly? They have never been found in rock layers before archie.




-------
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: 09:59 AM on September 7, 2009 | IP
Ellman

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:59 AM on September 7, 2009 :
Mustrum
Lester, do you have response to Yehren's post? Even a layman can see that Archie is more similar to some dinos than he is to modern birds.


Well that's funny, the bird specialist Alan Fedducia said that archeopteryx was a bird, a perching bird and he concluded that 'no amount of paleobabble is going to change that.' Maybe some strange laymen think Archie is more similar to a dino but I can tell you that I agree with the bird specialist -when I look at archie along with a whole bunch of other bird skeletons, you can't see which one is not a bird.

Also, what do you make of all the feathered dinos that have been found in China?


Well these feathered dinos have been criticized by both creationists and evolutionists. Apparently these 'feathered dinosaurs' are more likely flightless birds. The feathers of flightless birds today are as reduced in structure as these are. They are symmetric feathers like those of birds that are flightless.
Those who believe that these fossils are birds base their interpretation on the anatomy of the feathers and the size of the wings. Those who consider them to be dinosaurs with feathers base their conclusions on the fact that some have teeth and some have dinosaur-like features, like a long tail.

The other problem is that these fossils are supposed to have lived 25 million years after the earliest bird, archie -so how could these
'feathered dinosaurs' be the ancestors of birds if they lived after Archie, a bird that could already fly? They have never been found in rock layers before archie.





Yet there are a number of studies of the ability of flight in archeopteryx that doesn't support your "flightless"-hypothesis.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2409477
And the considered earliest bird:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/07/07/rspb.2009.0885.abstract

Also the skeleton thingy, Archeopteryx has a number of features that is very specific compared to regular birds. Not many birds have any claws left. Only specie i can think of must be the EMU, but with very small ones. EDIT: i found anotherone, Hoatzin. Don't tell me you cannot differ these:


Also a bird is defined to have a set of features that the early bird couldn't have had. Even if it could fly that doesn't automatically make it a bird. Is a bat a bird? No it's a mamal. See my point?


Oh and you failed to answer my question Lester.

(Edited by Ellman 9/7/2009 at 11:00 AM).

(Edited by Ellman 9/7/2009 at 11:06 AM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:57 AM on September 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

A scientist can be biased, but science itself can't, otherwise it isn't science.


Unfortunately it nonetheless is, as evidenced by peer reviewed journals controlled by scientists with an evolutionary bias.

I have a belief that the American Civil War happened, is that also a religious belief? Or is it one based on the observable evidence even though it can never be repeated and was a once off event?


I think you know that a recorded historical event is not something that fits into the same category, given that other people were around to witness the event.
But because we have transitionals, like Archie, and understand things like genetic drift, DNA, heredity, mutations,  meiosis, ect. We can reasonably conclude that macro evolution is valid.


The problem with transitionals is that, like archie, they are not generally representative of what there is in the fossil record. The record is far more supportive of creation in that the gaps between different kinds of creatures are too vast and obvious. The so-called transitionals are not even transitional for a lot of reasons not least of all because archie was already a true flyer and not on its way to becoming a flyer.
If you want to conclude that macroevolution is true then we need more than fruit flies turning into …fruit flies and bacteria staying bacteria no matter what. We don’t have to prove that it’s not possible to extrapolate, you need to prove that it is - otherwise you’re guessing and your guesses are not based on the available evidence but on the available imagination.

Neither is there hard evidence that natural processes alone created life.
I would say there is evidence for natural processes alone


There’s only wishful thinking and philosophical prejudice unfortunately, no evidence. It’s the wishful thought that precedes the evidence and not the other way around as it should be.
If the laws were different than today, and since you don't like studying past events through scientific inquiry, anything that you come up with is not based on anything and is only ignorant speculation at best.


Well that’s what the Big bang and the evolution of stars and planets is, ignorant speculation from people who want to exclude God from the equation and are coming with law breaking processes that they imagine are responsible for what exists. Those processes are not happening now but we’re expected to believe that they once did.

But as we got more (and more accurate) evidence and better instruments to study the heavens, a geocentric model would become obsolete, like the Ptolemy model, and replaced by heliocentrism. That is how science works.


One would think then that since the evidence for gradualism, that Darwin hoped would be forthcoming, still has not manifested itself in the evidence, evolutionists would give up their ambitions for gradualistic naturalistic evolution as the explanation for life; but then clearly that’s not how science works. Philosophy overrides evidence and that’s all that matters to the committed.

. It strives for truth but it never claims to have truth, this is one big difference in respect to religion.


Well you’ve got it right there; in fact I’ve heard a few evos say similar things. For example “even if creation were true, it could not be science because it is not naturalistic.” Science is supposed to be the search for truth but evolutionary ‘scientists’ are rejecting the true explanation in the interests of naturalistic untrue explanations for everything.

When scientists study origins they are trying to get as close to the truth as possible, but it is not a bad thing to discount the supernatural from a scientific perspective.


Well then you’re just begging the question. If you have to discount the supernatural as a cause before viewing the evidence then you are not looking for the truth, instead you are looking for a naturalistic mechanism by which life may have occurred if it happened via a naturalistic mechanism at all. That means that if the supernatural is the mechanism by which it happened, you are blatently avoiding reality.

But when you add in religion all you can really say is 'God did it', and you can do no experiments with it what so ever.


That garbage has been repeated so often by evos I think they are actually starting to believe themselves. Do you mean to tell me that if God created life we are no longer able to study that life and investigate anything about it? Being a scientist does not mean one has to be able to be God making life from non-life surely. We have two possibilities; God did it or nature did it and if God did it then making up plausible stories about how nature did it when nature did not do it gets one precisely nowhere.It’s utterly nonsensical.

A few thousand years ago if anyone proposed a heliocentric model people would have thought they were crazy, things clearly revolve around the Earth. All the evidence back then pointed to a geocentric model, so the 'scientific fly' would be for geocentrism while the other fly would be for a heliocentric model. But as we got more (and more accurate) evidence and better instruments to study the heavens, a geocentric model would become obsolete, like the Ptolemy model, and replaced by heliocentrism. That is how science works.


You couldn’t have put it better and that’s exactly why evos should get with the times. Better equipment shows us micromachinary and chemical pathways that Darwin knew nothing about. The fossil record of today demonstrates that the gaps are there because there is no gradualistic evolution. Evolution is not advanced science, it is an unrealistic archaic holdover from the 19th century. Time to wake up folks!

Beyond throwing out everything we know about natural reality, inputting the idea of magic gets us no where in empirical science.


It’s only magic if brainless nature managed all the intricate complexity without any help from any intelligence of any kind. In that case we’d all have to worship nature. Wait! Isn’t that nature worship? Isn’t that the pagan belief of old? You know I think it is –it’s just all dressed up in pseudo-scientific terminology. What big teeth you have, Grandma!

But we obviously have observed processes of people making new people.


But where did that machinery come from?? Pretty strange how it all arranged itself from two into one – all so co-ordinated, so organized. No plan whatsoever!?

In a way you are correct. When creating theories the one that wins correlates the best with the observed evidence and it is a matter of choosing which one fits best.


So the best naturalistic model wins –no room for the truth there –just begging the question once again.

 



-------
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: 08:42 AM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Haha, it's too early to do this. I accidentally hit enter without writing anything! I will try to get some stuff in before I have to go to my first class

Quote from Lester10 at 08:42 AM on September 10, 2009 :
Unfortunately it nonetheless is, as evidenced by peer reviewed journals controlled by scientists with an evolutionary bias.


However, all the scientists were convinced by the evidence, and I could just as easy say that all the good folks at ICR are even more biased than evolutionary scientists.

I think you know that a recorded historical event is not something that fits into the same category, given that other people were around to witness the event.


Okay, lets take an house fire then. No one to witness it, but when I look inside the house I can see signs of arson. Would it than be a religious statement for me to say that the house burned down because of arson?

The problem with transitionals is that, like archie, they are not generally representative of what there is in the fossil record.


I'll agree that Archie is a rare find, but are you admitting that Archie is a transitional, and thus positive evidence for evolution!?

The record is far more supportive of creation in that the gaps between different kinds of creatures are too vast and obvious. The so-called transitionals are not even transitional for a lot of reasons not least of all because archie was already a true flyer and not on its way to becoming a flyer.


Fossils are vary rare, and it is a miracle that we have as many as we do. Transitional species probably didn't last too long in the geological column. While Archie was a bird, it wasn't characteristic of a modern bird. And I doubt it would have been able to fly a distance of about half the size of the Pacific Ocean, which many "fliers" of the time could have.

If you want to conclude that macroevolution is true then we need more than fruit flies turning into …fruit flies and bacteria staying bacteria no matter what.


I agree, but evolution says that we shouldn't be able to see these changes in the lifespan of a human. But we do see the fossil record which supports evolution. Theoretically a single celled organism could evolve into a human, the genetics supports it, and the fossil record does as well.

We don’t have to prove that it’s not possible to extrapolate, you need to prove that it is - otherwise you’re guessing and your guesses are not based on the available evidence but on the available imagination.


Look at the hard evidence, genetics and the fossil record, evolution has the evidence. It isn't just wishful thinking thought up in some pagan hallucination ritual.

I would say there is evidence for natural processes alone

There’s only wishful thinking and philosophical prejudice unfortunately, no evidence. It’s the wishful thought that precedes the evidence and not the other way around as it should be.


So where is the evidence for supernatural intervention?

Well that’s what the Big bang and the evolution of stars and planets is, ignorant speculation from people who want to exclude God from the equation and are coming with law breaking processes that they imagine are responsible for what exists. Those processes are not happening now but we’re expected to believe that they once did.


You do know stellar evolution is still happening, we can see into the past (starlight) and through things like parallax and variable stars we can tell how far away, and thus how old we are looking into the past. So not only do we see stellar evolution at work, with things like population 2 and 1 stars, we see it in the past as well. We also see planets being formed from nebula, the eagle nebula comes to mind on this one. Not to mention things like redshift, Hubble constant, and CMB's somewhat confirm that the big bang happened, even if we don't know the specifics. As well as the time distribution of population 1 and 2 stars. And all this time no breaking of laws are required, no need to push God out of the equation but just the opposite. For God to create a universe so elegant in its natural processes to conform the cosmos in such order from the smallest unit (strings?) to the largest perspective of space-time and beyond, and also, to be able to harbor creatures such as ourselves. Such things do not discount God, but to understand the natural processes by which God created reveals the beauty of creation in a new light, and one of faith cannot help but to bring glory to God.

I have to go to class, but I'll try and finish up the rest later today.

(Edited by Fencer27 9/10/2009 at 10:10 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: 09:10 AM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry Ellman I seem to have missed your post there!

Yet there are a number of studies of the ability of flight in archeopteryx that doesn't support your "flightless"-hypothesis.


quote from Lester:Apparently these 'feathered dinosaurs' are more likely flightless birds.
Archaeopteryx, on the other hand, shows every sign of having been a strong flier, nothing intermediate about that.

Don't tell me you cannot differ these:


Well why choose a pigeon? Choose some of the many that are closer to Archie. There really isn't a lot of difference between Archie and birds in general. Besides we know Archie was a strong flier so he was far from a dinosaur in that respect. The claws like you say are found on other birds. Teeth were found in other ancient birds and are by no means specific to dinosaurs.(they also had a different kind of teeth compared to the dinosaurs evolutionists like to align them to most often).  The penguin also has a tail and unfused vertebrae and the meat-eating dinosaurs have tails 4-5 feet long with scales compared to archie whose tail is 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers.

I think the most important question is:
Does Archie provide clues as to how scales evolved into feathers or legs into wings? Or is it more likely a mosaic of complete traits? When we find wings as fossils, we find completely developed, fully functional wings. Same for flying insects, flying reptiles (pterodactyls) and flying mammals (bats).

Also scales and feathers are completely different and don't even develop from the same genes so the one couldn't have evolved from the other.

Since the general picture in the fossil record does not support gradualism, I think we can safely assume that Archaeopteryx was a bird.  
 



-------
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: 03:21 AM on September 11, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:42 AM on September 10, 2009 :
One would think then that since the evidence for gradualism, that Darwin hoped would be forthcoming, still has not manifested itself in the evidence, evolutionists would give up their ambitions for gradualistic naturalistic evolution as the explanation for life; but then clearly that’s not how science works. Philosophy overrides evidence and that’s all that matters to the committed.


Philosophy clearly doesn't override evidence, again I would bring you back to geocentrism. If philosophy were held with such reverence the heliocentric model would have never gotten to where it is today. As for gradualism, we do see gradualism in the fossil record. For example scientists have a hard time distinguishing late H. Habilis and early H. Erectus from the fossil record.

Well you’ve got it right there; in fact I’ve heard a few evos say similar things. For example “even if creation were true, it could not be science because it is not naturalistic.”


I guess I'll humor you, it wouldn't work quite that way. Let's say that creationism is true, we notice some observations, come up with a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, come up with a working model, and after years and years of testing we come to a theory of creation that has yet to be falsified. Even though creation is "truth", science would never allow such terminology. Instead one would have to say that creation is the theory that best fits the data so far, therefore the scientific community accepts it.

You also bring up another point, in that creation is not natural. Again, even if creation is "truth" it cannot be explored via the scientific method because it is a methodology to understand the natural, not the supernatural.

Well then you’re just begging the question. If you have to discount the supernatural as a cause before viewing the evidence then you are not looking for the truth, instead you are looking for a naturalistic mechanism by which life may have occurred if it happened via a naturalistic mechanism at all. That means that if the supernatural is the mechanism by which it happened, you are blatently avoiding reality.


Not quite like the way you describe it. We cannot test or explore anything other than the natural. So if it was supernatural we cannot ever know that or test by the scientific method. So why create hypotheses and models on things that can never be tested in any way shape or form? If we notice something, and cannot find a natural cause for it, the only thing science can say is we don't, as of yet, have a naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon we have observed.

That garbage has been repeated so often by evos I think they are actually starting to believe themselves. Do you mean to tell me that if God created life we are no longer able to study that life and investigate anything about it? Being a scientist does not mean one has to be able to be God making life from non-life surely. We have two possibilities; God did it or nature did it and if God did it then making up plausible stories about how nature did it when nature did not do it gets one precisely nowhere.It’s utterly nonsensical.


You fail to understand, or perhaps recognize, the third option; God created via natural means. If we say God did it, than we cannot use that statement (no matter how true it is) when it comes to science. God could have created life, and yes we can study that life, but to say that God created it does nothing to further scientific knowledge about that life.

You couldn’t have put it better and that’s exactly why evos should get with the times. Better equipment shows us micromachinary and chemical pathways that Darwin knew nothing about. The fossil record of today demonstrates that the gaps are there because there is no gradualistic evolution. Evolution is not advanced science, it is an unrealistic archaic holdover from the 19th century. Time to wake up folks!


Unfortunately reality didn't work out quite like the scenario I created. It would be more like the religious and the scientist liked the geocentric model. For the scientist things to revolve around the Earth, and the religious the scripture teaches that everything revolves around the Earth. Now when more evidence comes in, the scientist conforms to the evidence proposing a heliocentric model while the religious protests and claims that the Ptolemy model works better. As for Darwin, of course his ideas were primitive, and we know so much more now about micro biology and science in general. Still, his basic idea of natural selection is correct (whether you admit it or not you accept natural selection), and with refined theories we have come up with the modern evolutionary synthesis that has not yet been falsified. I'm sure one of our evo friends here would gladly show you how the fossil record supports gradualism.

It’s only magic if brainless nature managed all the intricate complexity without any help from any intelligence of any kind. In that case we’d all have to worship nature. Wait! Isn’t that nature worship? Isn’t that the pagan belief of old? You know I think it is –it’s just all dressed up in pseudo-scientific terminology. What big teeth you have, Grandma!


The complex structure and order of the universe can be understood by naturalistic processes in the fields of physics and chemistry. It is far from nature worship, or pagan belief. Science deals only with the natural, to say that this is supernatural/magic you are claiming that science cannot comment on it, and it gets us no where in science.

But we obviously have observed processes of people making new people.


But where did that machinery come from?? Pretty strange how it all arranged itself from two into one – all so co-ordinated, so organized. No plan whatsoever!?


Well, when a boy and a girl like each other they fuse gametes together. Gametes have DNA in them that are like the genetic blueprints of an organism. But Gametes are only haploid, when they fuse to become a zygote the cell becomes diploid. And from the information contained in the DNA molecules, it can start mitosis and divide into a fully functional human. Or is your question more about how do the gametes fuse? Or perhaps how did the mechanism of the fusion evolve?

In a way you are correct. When creating theories the one that wins correlates the best with the observed evidence and it is a matter of choosing which one fits best.


So the best naturalistic model wins –no room for the truth there –just begging the question once again.


Again science is about understanding the natural world, not the supernatural. When you throw in the supernatural it does nothing to science at best, and at worst it can have science marching backwards.


-------
"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: 04:42 AM on September 11, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer 27

If philosophy were held with such reverence the heliocentric model would have never gotten to where it is today.


And if philosophy were less of an overriding factor, evidence against evolution would be made visible to all and evolutionists would be less scared of it.

As for gradualism, we do see gradualism in the fossil record. For example scientists have a hard time distinguishing late H. Habilis and early H. Erectus from the fossil record.

Well that’ll be because they’re both members of the human race and it’s only the philosophy of evolution that is trying to divide them up into different species.
Nature 448:688-691, 9 August 2007

While many evolutionists have long argued that H. habilis (sometimes dubbed ‘handy man’) evolved into H. erectus, this international team of palaeoanthropology experts is now saying that the two species lived side by side with one another for half a million years! The discoverer of the fossils, Frederick Manthi (of the National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi) reportedly said: ‘Homo habilis never gave rise to Homo erectus. These discoveries have completely changed the story.

Why are we not surprised?!

You also bring up another point, in that creation is not natural. Again, even if creation is "truth" it cannot be explored via the scientific method because it is a methodology to understand the natural, not the supernatural.


Fencer, you’re not listening. We are not asking for the supernatural to be explored. Science explores the way things work not where they came from. That is called history. The problem with evolutionists is that they are trying to force their origins philosophy on the world in the name of science. You can’t use the scientific method to explore once-off historical events nor can you conclude that the world and all that’s in it came from natural processes just because anything else must be excluded by definition. If science is a search for truth then don’t define the truth right out by insisting that the world had to have a naturalistic origin.

because it is a methodology to understand the natural, not the supernatural.


Precisely and everything operates today according to natural law and we all agree on that and that is why we can use science the way we do to investigate life. That does not exclude a non-evolutionary origin of life however.

If we notice something, and cannot find a natural cause for it, the only thing science can say is we don't, as of yet, have a naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon we have observed.


And if there is ultimately no naturalistic explanation for it, then we never will have a true explanation according to evolutionary rules because the truth is defined out by the rules. Don’t you see how illogical your reasoning is?

If we say God did it, than we cannot use that statement (no matter how true it is) when it comes to science.


Well then we cannot assume a naturalistic origin either if we care about truth, the real explanation. None of this stops science from investigating life and if evolution as a worldview is not capable of explaining how life came into existence then the philosophy should not be taught as dogma in schools and universities.

Now when more evidence comes in, the scientist conforms to the evidence proposing a heliocentric model while the religious protests and claims that the Ptolemy model works better.


Well there we have it in a nutshell. The evolution philosophy refuses the evidence of absence of gradualism despite its obvious discomfirmation of evolution. That’s a religious protest, not an evidentially based one. That’s why I say that evolution is a religion, a philosophy that overrides evidence in its adherents. No matter how much evidence accumulates against it, evolutionists refuse to abandon their dogma. They refuse to even have the negative evidence against it displayed in science classes.

Still, his basic idea of natural selection is correct (whether you admit it or not you accept natural selection)


Everybody accepts natural selection –the concept was initially recorded by creationists long before Darwin. NS has never been an issue –it is a visible reality but it has nothing to do with the larger claims of evolution.
Still, his basic idea of natural selection is correct (whether you admit it or not you accept natural selection), and with refined theories we have come up with the modern evolutionary synthesis that has not yet been falsified.


It is because it is so elastic that it can explain anything including two complete opposites, that we say it is pseudoscience. It is not falsifiable and there is always a plausible evolutionary story for everything, no matter what. Evolution’s risky predictions, required by real theories, are things such as lack of gradualism in the fossil record –there is no gradualism, but there are always more and more excuses, excuses, excuses.

I'm sure one of our evo friends here would gladly show you how the fossil record supports gradualism.


Unfortunately they can only show me things like archaeopteryx, horse evolution, whale evolution and similar debatable examples. There should be millions of obvious ones not just a handful of really unconvincing ones. The general picture remains one of obvious, systematic gaps between clearly different kinds of organisms –that’s the prediction of creation, not of evolution.

The complex structure and order of the universe can be understood by naturalistic processes in the fields of physics and chemistry.


No it can’t. Life is not just chemical attractions and the order and origin of planets and stars and galaxies is not explainable by naturalistic processes in physics and chemistry.

Well, when a boy and a girl like each other they fuse gametes together.


Now that’s romantic! The problem is how did the two sexes originate and manage to somehow be complementary physically, biologically, chemically? It makes no sense in an evolutionary worldview. The Bible says that people were created, male and female –now that makes sense! Anything that evolution comes up with to explain this naturalistically is only a plausible story and none sound plausible as far as I’ve ever heard. Do you have a good explanation for the formation of the two sexes?

And from the information contained in the DNA molecules, it can start mitosis and divide into a fully functional human.


Sounds like an intelligent purposeful programme to me, not a simple matter of chemical attractions.

Or is your question more about how do the gametes fuse? Or perhaps how did the mechanism of the fusion evolve?


Or why?

Again science is about understanding the natural world, not the supernatural. When you throw in the supernatural it does nothing to science at best, and at worst it can have science marching backwards.


Forcing your favoured naturalistic philosophy on the evidence already has science marching backwards.







-------
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: 07:21 AM on September 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:21 AM on September 12, 2009 :
Fencer 27

If philosophy were held with such reverence the heliocentric model would have never gotten to where it is today.


And if philosophy were less of an overriding factor, evidence against evolution would be made visible to all and evolutionists would be less scared of it.


So present some evidence, preferably not a cut'n paste that you are not prepared to discuss.



-------
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: 3:07 PM on September 12, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from waterboy at 04:11 AM on July 5, 2009 :
We observe that at different times in geological history todays organisms do not appear... consistently! Other organisms are found that do not exist today.

Wow.  You are going to say this in the light of living fossils This would indicate the exact opposite of what you say.
Quote from waterboy at 04:11 AM on July 5, 2009 :Going back in time far enough we find very different and generally much simpler organisms.

Actually it is according to interpretation since you weren't there, nor any other scientist 100 million years ago.  You just assume the layers are that old.  

If I interpret the Cambrian explosion as a flood event it works fine because most of the phyla are marine--it would make sense that sediment covered marine creatures at the lowest point--the ocean bottom.
Quote from waterboy at 04:11 AM on July 5, 2009 :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).


Like the inference of a smelly T-Rex leg bone that was found to have heme and blood vessels in it.  Or a squid dated at 168 million years old with a preserved ink sack and ink (melanin--the organic pigment found in our skin).  This kind of stubborn steam roller go with the flow line of thinking makes the evidence follow the theory.

Quote from waterboy at 04:11 AM on July 5, 2009 :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.  

Are you still equating evolution with science, as though it has no underlying philosophy or worldview bias, and as though creationists have no empirical evidence or research upon which they theorize.  Technically they are both historical science and opposing views.

When I read the geologic timescale I see aauniformintarian evolutionary Bible written by men who are limited by metaphysical naturalism


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:48 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

Fencer

because it is a methodology to understand the natural, not the supernatural.



Precisely and everything operates today according to natural law and we all agree on that and that is why we can use science the way we do to investigate life.



However, Lester makes exceptions of those scientific principles and methods that contradict his YEC ideas - such as radiometric dating, thermodynamics, plate tectonics, basic geology pointing to an ancient earth, astronomy, etc, etc, etc.

Lester has no interest in understanding the vital role integrity plays in science.  You don't understand how science operates.  You have demonstrated that time and time again in post after post.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:04 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion,
Lester makes exceptions of those scientific principles and methods that contradict his YEC ideas - such as radiometric dating


Well it doesn't work for known dates so there's no point in flogging a dead pig is there?
You should try working with what works, not that which does not. I suppose that's why, in general, evolutionists use index fossils rather than their actual dating method. When they do use their dating method, they throw out the radically erroneous dates and use only those which help to confirm their prejudice.  

thermodynamics


Evolution contradicts 2LOT so actually creation agrees with it and evolution denies it -which is not the kind of point you're trying to make here.

plate tectonics


I don't recall ever commenting on this.

basic geology pointing to an ancient earth


How can you tell that a rock is old? By looking at it? How does basic geology point to an old earth exactly? You assume a geological column built up over millenia, we disagree with your interpetation. And your point is...

Evolutionists would have us believe that reptiles turned into birds slowly and randomly via mutations and natural selection. Nothing like that is happening now and yet they believe it - so don't tell me that creationists are the ones making exceptions to what is occurring now with natural laws.

Lester has no interest in understanding the vital role integrity plays in science.


That's quite a random ad hominem isn't it, Orion? Science has people with integrity as has every other sector of society so that is not unusual. A lot of evolutionists may even have a certain degree of integrity but if they have, then I have to say that they are blind to the role that philisophy plays in their belief system. That is where they wander off course and ignore evidence that is shouting at them to wake up.

You don't understand how science operates.  You have demonstrated that time and time again in post after post.


No Orion, that's where you're wrong. I understand science perfectly well -I just don't happen to agree with you and it is your prejudice that makes you imagine that I don't understand. This 'you would believe in evolution if you understood science' lark is old and worn and silly.



-------
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: 04:44 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester - regarding radiometric dating

Well it doesn't work for known dates so there's no point in flogging a dead pig is there?

How do you know radiometric dating doesn't work, Lester?  Would you mind presenting some scientific evidence (citing your sources, of course)?


Evolution contradicts 2LOT so actually creation agrees with it and evolution denies it


And where did you get that idea from, Lester - Henry Morris?

The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends towards disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.

Nonsense.  Henry Morris is misrepresenting the 2LOT.  Life on earth does not take place in a closed system.  We receive a constant influx of energy from the sun.  In fact, you can see examples of order from disorder all the time - snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, etc.  All because the earth is NOT a closed system.  

Here's an interesting article from Richard Dawkins regarding 2LOT and evolution.

The Only One in Step

What we have here is another example of someone (Andrew McIntosh) who is pitting a blind belief in Biblical authority against the immense foundation of science and reason.

I can tell you with confidence which side is going to lose.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:19 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:44 AM on September 13, 2009 :

thermodynamics


Evolution contradicts 2LOT so actually creation agrees with it and evolution denies it -which is not the kind of point you're trying to make here.


Heat diffusion has nothing to do with the 2nd law.


plate tectonics


I don't recall ever commenting on this.


Quote from Lester10 at 03:14 AM on August 22, 2009 :
Mustrum

Let's hear more about these other techniques.


Sea sediment compared to accumulation rate







-------
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: 12:29 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:51 AM on July 16, 2009 :


Well somebody doesn't have a clue about evidence and interpretations.

Yes... somebody...



This is an ignorant comment by somebody who hasn't really looked at the controversy in any depth


How rude and arrogant!

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.


Ah, so a Christian can have TRUE interpretations fo evidence that simply differ formt eh TRUE interpretations of non-Christians, but they are still TRUE because you look at things from under a different 'worldview' - a worldview in which reality and evidence is trumped by revelation and ancient fairy tales...

Wonderful...


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:31 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Funny how some posts get ignored, isn't it?
Quote from derwood at 3:46 PM on September 2, 2009 :
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.


Never see anthropomorphic deities making men of dirt, either.


Positive mutation leading to increased information?


Science 27 September 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2253 - 2256

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*

Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene



You lose.







-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:36 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:21 AM on September 12, 2009 :
And if philosophy were less of an overriding factor, evidence against evolution would be made visible to all and evolutionists would be less scared of it.


The evidence is out there, the problem is that it is not scientific evidence, but creation myths.

Well that’ll be because they’re both members of the human race and it’s only the philosophy of evolution that is trying to divide them up into different species.
Nature 448:688-691, 9 August 2007...


I heard that there was some evidence to suggest that the two lived side by side, but never heard what it was before. However, evolution doesn't need habilis and erectus to be vertical on the tree of life. Gradualism is observed everywhere, you don't want to see it because than you will have to throw out your interpretation of the Bible.

Fencer, you’re not listening. We are not asking for the supernatural to be explored. Science explores the way things work not where they came from. That is called history. The problem with evolutionists is that they are trying to force their origins philosophy on the world in the name of science. You can’t use the scientific method to explore once-off historical events nor can you conclude that the world and all that’s in it came from natural processes just because anything else must be excluded by definition. If science is a search for truth then don’t define the truth right out by insisting that the world had to have a naturalistic origin.


I'm not saying that the world must have a naturalistic origin, only that science can't say anything about the supernatural and so must rely on the natural. There is no room for God did it answers in science. Lets say that God made everything, now what? What scientific test(s) can you do to support your hypothesis?

Precisely and everything operates today according to natural law and we all agree on that and that is why we can use science the way we do to investigate life. That does not exclude a non-evolutionary origin of life however.


I agree that a non-natural explanation could be the correct one, but how would you go about testing it?

And if there is ultimately no naturalistic explanation for it,


Then science will never find the answer.  

Well then we cannot assume a naturalistic origin either if we care about truth, the real explanation. None of this stops science from investigating life and if evolution as a worldview is not capable of explaining how life came into existence then the philosophy should not be taught as dogma in schools and universities.


Yet evolution isn't about the formation of life, but how life diversifies once it was formed.  

No matter how much evidence accumulates against it, evolutionists refuse to abandon their dogma. They refuse to even have the negative evidence against it displayed in science classes.


So what is this evidence you speak of? If you have said it before I think I missed it somehow.

Everybody accepts natural selection –the concept was initially recorded by creationists long before Darwin. NS has never been an issue –it is a visible reality but it has nothing to do with the larger claims of evolution.


NS has a lot to do with evolution.

It is because it is so elastic that it can explain anything including two complete opposites, that we say it is pseudoscience. It is not falsifiable and there is always a plausible evolutionary story for everything, no matter what.


Well, if you find fossils outside the time in which they lived it would falsify evolution. I'm sure if you found other things, like something wrong with our understanding of inheritance it would also lend credence to falsify evolution.

Unfortunately they can only show me things like archaeopteryx, horse evolution, whale evolution and similar debatable examples.


Never mind all of those things support evolution, gradualism and transition fossils.

There should be millions of obvious ones not just a handful of really unconvincing ones. The general picture remains one of obvious, systematic gaps between clearly different kinds of organisms –that’s the prediction of creation, not of evolution.


So how many kinds are there?

No it can’t. Life is not just chemical attractions and the order and origin of planets and stars and galaxies is not explainable by naturalistic processes in physics and chemistry.


So what cannot be explained that would warrant supernatural intervention?

Now that’s romantic! The problem is how did the two sexes originate and manage to somehow be complementary physically, biologically, chemically? It makes no sense in an evolutionary worldview.


We don't know how the two sexes originated, but there are several ideas. If you're really interested look it up. But I am curious as to why it wouldn't make sense in an evolutionary world. Sexual reproduction increases the diversity of a population better than asexual reproduction would.

The Bible says that people were created, male and female –now that makes sense!


I wish I could sprinkle magic on my ideas and have them be believed by all fundamentalists.

Anything that evolution comes up with to explain this naturalistically is only a plausible story and none sound plausible as far as I’ve ever heard. Do you have a good explanation for the formation of the two sexes?


Well, since sexual reproduction provides more diversity, the population would be better able to adapt to changing environments. So if mutations happened that allowed the development of two sexes, it would be a positive mutation in that the population would be more adaptable. My guess is that sexual reproduction started on the cellular level. I will probably look very ignorant to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about if I go on any longer. So if you really want to learn about it read material yourself or ask a better equipped evo.

Sounds like an intelligent purposeful programme to me, not a simple matter of chemical attractions.


What part of a zygote turning into a baby 9 months later cannot be explained by science?

Or is your question more about how do the gametes fuse? Or perhaps how did the mechanism of the fusion evolve?


Or why?


Why sexual reproduction? Because it creates a more diverse, and thus adaptable, population.

Forcing your favoured naturalistic philosophy on the evidence already has science marching backwards.


That's not what is happening. We know that populations evolve, scientists made hypotheses, made experiments, created models, revised those models and created the theory of evolution. Nothing was forced, evolution fits the data better than anything science has come up yet. But if you have evidence against evolution and for creationism than I will be willing to listen to it.


-------
"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: 11:29 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:21 AM on September 12, 2009 :
Fencer 27

If philosophy were held with such reverence the heliocentric model would have never gotten to where it is today.


And if philosophy were less of an overriding factor, evidence against evolution would be made visible to all and evolutionists would be less scared of it.



Name some of this evidence.

And be prepared to defend it in your own words (remember how poorly you did supporting your claim about molecular genetics not supporting evolution).




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:37 AM on September 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Name some of this evidence.


The fossil record.
DNA
Protein
Lack of evidence for macroevolution.
The nature of mutations.
The unprovable assumptions of radiometric dating.
And on and on and on and on.

And be prepared to defend it in your own words (remember how poorly you did supporting your claim about molecular genetics not supporting evolution).


No actually I don't remember that but I do remember knowing that molecules can support anything you want to support, you just need to choose the right molecules, line them up according to your prejudice and assume that commonalities in any two molecules suggest a common ancestor rather than a common designer.

One thing I have noticed about you Derwood is that what you lack in evidence, you make up for in ad hominems and distraction tactics.




-------
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: 11:00 AM on September 16, 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.