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
     Does creationism predict gaps?
       Put up or shut up

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

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From Definitions.
Lester
Systematic gaps in the fossil record are a prediction of creation, not evolution.
Creation predicts gaps??? Gaps??? You can only talk about gaps when thinking in evolutionary terms. How weak is creationism then, that it needs Evolutionary concepts?

And exactly how does it predict them?

I'm kinda tired of you tossing claims over and over again without ever defending them. I'm starting a thread, since you won't. Defend that claim.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:00 PM on October 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again, from Definitions:
All systematic gaps mean to you is that the missing pieces haven’t been found yet.
Yes, pretty much. I think you're right on this one (although i have no clue about what 'systematic' means in this case).

Why do you think that's a problem?



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:06 PM on October 31, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exactly...


-------
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: 01:16 AM on November 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's say i found 1 and 10. If i think that they belong in the same line i see a gap between those two (that's why i say that creationists should see no gaps).

Let's say i found 5. I put it between 1 and 10, and now i have two gaps: 1-5 and 5-10.

Let's say i found 3. I put it between 1 and 5, and now i have three gaps: 1-3, 3-5 and 5-10.

Let's say i found 7. I put it between 5 and 10, and now i have four gaps: 1-3, 3-5, 5-7 and 7-10.

Each finding adds a new gap. And that's ok.

Creationists shouldn't attack the gaps, but their size (and even then they'd be wrong).



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:18 AM on November 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One of the basic problems I see is with the YEC's basic grasp of evolutionary concepts.

This failure extends from the micro (DNA issues) to the macro (fossils).

Perhaps a demonstration/anecdote from the micro will be helpful.

Warren Bergerson is a retired actuary who claims to have disproved evolution using actuarial math (multiple decrement analysis)*.

He looked at what 'we' (i.e., he) should see if evolution were true at the level of the gene.

He declared that if evolution were true, and mutation were random, then we should see every possible iteration of a mutant gene in the population at equal frequency.

That is, for a typical gene of 1500 nucleotides in length, we should be able to see 1500 variants of that gene in the population. (I will neglect for now the fact that a gene with 1500 nucleoitides would actually produce many more possible variants than 1500, but this is the number he used).
Because we do not see this, therefore, he concluded, something is wrong with evolution.

The same basic errors of logic are seen by YECs in terms of 'gaps' in the fossil record.


*The history to this debacleis actually quite entertaining.  I will expand on it later - off to class.








-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:51 AM on November 2, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 6:00 PM on October 31, 2009 :
From Definitions.
Lester
Systematic gaps in the fossil record are a prediction of creation, not evolution.
Creation predicts gaps??? Gaps??? You can only talk about gaps when thinking in evolutionary terms. How weak is creationism then, that it needs Evolutionary concepts?

And exactly how does it predict them?

I'm kinda tired of you tossing claims over and over again without ever defending them. I'm starting a thread, since you won't. Defend that claim.




YECism 'predicts' anything that evolution researchers have already discovered.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:15 AM on November 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It certainly seems so.

Whenever we say that the ToE predicts something we don't just say it. We can offer you the logical steps that, if Evolution was a fact, would lead to a certain observation in the natural world.

Within the ToE we can make hypotheses (i make lots of them, and put some to the test). If the observations don't match the predictions, and the tests were well designed, the hypotheses must be wrong.

I used to have a hypothesis on our urge to pee when we hear running water. I thought it meant that our instincts told us to pee in the water, because that was more hygienic.

I'm pretty sure i was wrong. Because males like to pee on trees. We tend to believe that we do it to hide. That it's a cultural matter of shame. But i don't think that's right. I'm thinking it's to spread the odor. A warning system. Territoriality perhaps.

How can i put this hypothesis to the test? Well, a piece of evidence would come from statistics. We can see that covering our mouths is a pretty cultural thing, since we do it much less when we're alone. If i'm right we should expect that males would keep peeing on trees even when we're alone. I think i've noticed that we don't like peeing on the ground.

That observation lead me to discard my hypothesis on peeing on water streams.

So why else would we have this urge to pee when hearing running water?

My new hypothesis begins as imagination and speculation (things that anti-Science people tend to hate).

Why would it be good to pee when we hear water? Immediately i suspect that there are other questions that should be done before that one.

Why is it good to pee? Why don't we retain the water and transpire it to cool ourselves? If we don't need to cool ourselves, why not keep it until we do?

Well, to dispose of waste. Right? It makes sense.

So peeing is good. How do we do it?
We don't have an unlimited source of water inside of us, so we need to drink first.

But being hydrated is good too, as everyone knows (our thirst tells us even if we don't know the Science behind it).

Does that mean that our bodies should economize it?
It would be wonderful if it could (let's assume i didn't know).

Does the body regulate how much urine it produces?
Again, let's pretend i didn't know.

If your body received the information that it will be receiving water soon. What should it do?

Well, if it could regulate how much urine it produces, and was economizing it so it wouldn't get dehydrated, it's time to relax now.

Producing urine when wearing water is now revealed as a good adaptation that makes prefect sense under the light of Evolution.

What should we predict from Creationism?

I don't know. Do you suppose that Yahweh put those instincts (or reflexes, or whatever you want to call them) in Adam and Eve? Why? They didn't need to go on expeditions to search for food. They could stay near water at all times.

Besides creationists believe that Adam and Eve were very smart. Right? Why put instincts in them if they could rationalize better than we do?

Meh...



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:59 PM on November 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The idea was for Lester to put up or shut up. He chose. So let us not let Lester keep repeating bs about the gaps and get away with it.

An honest person chooses differently when confronted with his/her own arguments.



-------
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: 08:08 AM on November 14, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From Definitions.
Lester
Systematic gaps in the fossil record are a prediction of creation, not evolution.


Wisp:
Creation predicts gaps??? Gaps??? You can only talk about gaps when thinking in evolutionary terms. How weak is creationism then, that it needs Evolutionary concepts?

And exactly how does it predict them?

I'm kinda tired of you tossing claims over and over again without ever defending them. I'm starting a thread, since you won't. Defend that claim.


Wisp, I can't believe you don't see this.

First, Lester must speak to you in terms that you understand. Unfortunately that leads to mocking since you are automatically opposed to anything he says. How is it that "gaps"can only be spoken of in evolutionary terms? It is a word meant to convey an idea and is therefore useful in many a context.
Second, evolution predicts and implies a stream of continuity to one animal from its supposed ancestor. The gaps to an evo are therefore gaps in knowledge (missing link, etc.) not gaps in the process. You expect to eventually fill your gaps. You don't like gaps.
In a created world we would expect to find different kinds of animals with no necessity for a "missing link" thus the "gaps" that an evo seeks to fill are expected to remain unfilled.

It's no wonder Lester didn't answer this thread. It is based on either a willful misunderstanding of the concept or a purposeful avenue for derision.


 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:07 AM on November 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
From Definitions.
Lester
Systematic gaps in the fossil record are a prediction of creation, not evolution.
Creation predicts gaps??? Gaps??? You can only talk about gaps when thinking in evolutionary terms. How weak is creationism then, that it needs Evolutionary concepts?

And exactly how does it predict them?

I'm kinda tired of you tossing claims over and over again without ever defending them. I'm starting a thread, since you won't. Defend that claim.
Wisp, I can't believe you don't see this.
First, Lester must speak to you in terms that you understand.
I think Lester is crystal clear most of the times. Even when he's purposely obscure (like when he's providing definitions). I don't know what you mean by that.
Unfortunately that leads to mocking since you are automatically opposed to anything he says.
I can demonstrate that you're wrong. I have disagreed with derwood and Fencer in accord with something he has said.

Lester is right from time to time. And i'm really honest about it (even if i can be wrong about his being wrong from time to time).
How is it that "gaps"can only be spoken of in evolutionary terms?
Timbrx, I can't believe you don't see this:
A gap is a space between two things in the same line (from fish to human, for instance). You say there's no such a line. Ergo, you should see NO gaps.

I've brought Lester to the same realization, but he won't face his contradictions.

Here:
Lester
wisp
You say that there's no such a line between the Pakicetus and modern whales. So there should be NO gaps in your view.
There’s not a line or a gap
And here:
The fossil record has big gaps all over where there should be gradualism

timbrx
It is a word meant to convey an idea and is therefore useful in many a context.
The idea it conveys is that there IS an existing line between the two items separated by the gap.

There is no gap between a lemon and a perfume flask because nobody puts them in a line.
Second, evolution predicts and implies a stream of continuity to one animal from its supposed ancestor.
Not in the fossil record. Evolution doesn't imply or predict a constant rate of change, a constant population OR a constance of environmental conditions that allow for fossilization to take place.

The gaps to an evo are therefore gaps in knowledge (missing link, etc.) not gaps in the process.
Kinda right (although evolutionary jumps can and DO happen, leaving no intermediates).
You expect to eventually fill your gaps.
No. Gaps can only multiply.
You don't like gaps.
I love their multiplicity. It means we're advancing.
I thought it was clear when i posted this:
[color=teal]Let's say i found 1 and 10. If i think that they belong in the same line i see a gap between those two (that's why i say that creationists should see no gaps).

Let's say i found 5. I put it between 1 and 10, and now i have two gaps: 1-5 and 5-10.

Let's say i found 3. I put it between 1 and 5, and now i have three gaps: 1-3, 3-5 and 5-10.

Let's say i found 7. I put it between 5 and 10, and now i have four gaps: 1-3, 3-5, 5-7 and 7-10.

Each finding adds a new gap. And that's ok.
In a created world we would expect to find different kinds of animals
Er... Why? Why not a single self-sufficient kind? Why not just us and a solar chemical process to feed us?
with no necessity for a "missing link"
I don't know what you mean by "necessity". We just find them. We don't need them. We didn't need Evolution either.

In any case, you're saying i'm right about the subject of this thread. Creationism predicts NO missing links (or gaps). It looks like we're clear on this, and Lester was wrong.

thus the "gaps" that an evo seeks to fill are expected to remain unfilled.
Weasel words. Who expects that?
It's no wonder Lester didn't answer this thread.
Hahaha! You want to see nobility in that cowardice!
It is based on either a willful misunderstanding of the concept


Lester
There’s not a line or a gap
Lester
The fossil record has big gaps all over
Lester
There’s not a line or a gap
Lester
The fossil record has big gaps all over
Lester
There’s not a line or a gap
Lester
The fossil record has big gaps all over
Lester
There’s not a line or a gap
Lester
The fossil record has big gaps all over


timbrx
or a purposeful avenue for derision.
Perhaps i do believe that whatever he answers will be risible. Not my fault. He can try to prove me wrong.



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

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And exactly how does it predict them?

It predicts them in the sense that there are differences between say, cats and dogs, that cannot be reconciled with the evidence available. I "predict" that an evo will claim this difference to be a "gap" in their knowledge.


Wisp, I can't believe you don't see this.
First, Lester must speak to you in terms that you understand.
I think Lester is crystal clear most of the times. Even when he's purposely obscure (like when he's providing definitions). I don't know what you mean by that.

When Lester is talking about "gaps" he's talking about the same "gaps" that you might mention. This is how conversations work. You are both talking about the same thing but your understanding differs based on your presupposition.
Unfortunately that leads to mocking since you are automatically opposed to anything he says.

I can demonstrate that you're wrong. I have disagreed with derwood and Fencer in accord with something he has said.

I agree that you have always maintained some level of objectivity throughout our acquaintance. However with regards to Lester you have often demonstrated an obstinacy that is unbecoming of one as intelligent as yourself.

How is it that "gaps"can only be spoken of in evolutionary terms?

Timbrx, I can't believe you don't see this:
A gap is a space between two things in the same line (from fish to human, for instance). You say there's no such a line. Ergo, you should see NO gaps.

The line is what we are debating. Does it "exist" or not. In discussing the lines validity the question of the unreconciled gaps must necessarily arise. Whether you are an evo or a creo the "gaps" exist but only as questions within the discussion. A gap by its very nature is merely an idea. Even a gap between words on a page is empty. But it signifies separation between words. The term "gap in the fossil record" signifies a void whether you believe it should be eventually filled or not.
I've brought Lester to the same realization, but he won't face his contradictions.

The contradiction exists only between two different presuppositions. The "gap" in question is still merely an idea within the framework of a discussion.

Here:
Lester
wisp
You say that there's no such a line between the Pakicetus and modern whales. So there should be NO gaps in your view.
There’s not a line or a gap
And here:
The fossil record has big gaps all over where there should be gradualism

As a participant in a discussion of ideas you should be gracious enough to recognize when your acquaintance is representing his point of view or his understanding of your point of view.  
timbrx
It is a word meant to convey an idea and is therefore useful in many a context.

The idea it conveys is that there IS an existing line between the two items separated by the gap.

Exactly. You say "there is a line". I say "if there is a line than it has gaps". You say "we'll fill the gaps in time".  I say " I doubt it because I don't believe there is a line".
So we can both use the word gap in the discussion without compromising our respective positions.

Second, evolution predicts and implies a stream of continuity to one animal from its supposed ancestor.

Not in the fossil record. Evolution doesn't imply or predict a constant rate of change, a constant population OR a constance of environmental conditions that allow for fossilization to take place.

I said "continuity" not "consistent". Be careful, Mr. Lawyer!

The gaps to an evo are therefore gaps in knowledge (missing link, etc.) not gaps in the process.

Kinda right (although evolutionary jumps can and DO happen, leaving no intermediates).

How very convenient for your belief.

You expect to eventually fill your gaps.

No. Gaps can only multiply.
"You don't like gaps."
I love their multiplicity. It means we're advancing.
I thought it was clear when i posted this:
[color=teal]Let's say i found 1 and 10. If i think that they belong in the same line i see a gap between those two (that's why i say that creationists should see no gaps).

Let's say i found 5. I put it between 1 and 10, and now i have two gaps: 1-5 and 5-10.

Let's say i found 3. I put it between 1 and 5, and now i have three gaps: 1-3, 3-5 and 5-10.

Let's say i found 7. I put it between 5 and 10, and now i have four gaps: 1-3, 3-5, 5-7 and 7-10.

Each finding adds a new gap. And that's ok.

But even though you've demonstrated an increase in the quantity of gaps, the overall amount of information between the 1 and 10 has increased. You have demonstrably "filled in the gaps" a little bit at a time.


In a created world we would expect to find different kinds of animals

Er... Why? Why not a single self-sufficient kind? Why not just us and a solar chemical process to feed us?

Because what we see is what we have.
with no necessity for a "missing link"

I don't know what you mean by "necessity". We just find them. We don't need them. We didn't need Evolution either.

But evolution needs "missing links" in order to be rational.

In any case, you're saying i'm right about the subject of this thread. Creationism predicts NO missing links (or gaps). It looks like we're clear on this, and Lester was wrong.

Sort of. I don't believe the "gaps" can be filled since I don't believe in the line. But for the purpose of discussion I believe that Lester is perfectly right to use the word to "gap" to describe something that both of us see: lack of continuity, in an evolutionary sense, between kinds of animals.







 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:08 AM on November 15, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
And exactly how does it predict them?
It predicts them in the sense that there are differences between say, cats and dogs, that cannot be reconciled with the evidence available.
We're talking about gaps. There's not a line that joins cats and dogs, so you're changing the subject.
I "predict" that an evo will claim this difference to be a "gap" in their knowledge.
Using Lester's phrase, there’s not a line or a gap (when we're talking about cats and dogs).
When Lester is talking about "gaps" he's talking about the same "gaps" that you might mention.
That's my point.
This is how conversations work. You are both talking about the same thing but your understanding differs based on your presupposition.
Yeeeah, i don't think so. I mean, it makes sense! I don't deny it! But i still don't think so. I don't believe any creationist has that in mind when they say "gaps". And Lester would have said so.

Whenever he uses one of our concepts he never forgets to mock them. And he takes gaps very seriously. He loves gaps.

Sorry, but i don't buy it.

Unfortunately that leads to mocking since you are automatically opposed to anything he says.
I can demonstrate that you're wrong. I have disagreed with derwood and Fencer in accord with something he has said.
I agree that you have always maintained some level of objectivity throughout our acquaintance. However with regards to Lester you have often demonstrated an obstinacy that is unbecoming of one as intelligent as yourself.
Even if that was true (i don't believe it for one second though), that's not the issue. You said i'm "automatically opposed to anything he says". That was a mistake from your part, and you didn't feel like admitting it.

How is it that "gaps"can only be spoken of in evolutionary terms?
Timbrx, I can't believe you don't see this:
A gap is a space between two things in the same line (from fish to human, for instance). You say there's no such a line. Ergo, you should see NO gaps.
The line is what we are debating. Does it "exist" or not.
Right.
In discussing the lines validity the question of the unreconciled gaps must necessarily arise.
I disagree. You shouldn't mention the gaps. You should just say "They look nothing alike, except for what can be accounted by saying the same author did it".

You always say "if" (anything we say is true).

Like this: "If that's a transitional, then why doesn't it have half-feathers half-scales?"

You always deny transitionals. You deny vestigials too (Lester acknowledged them once, and he never spoke again about that, even though i pointed it out to him lots of times). For some strange reason you don't deny gaps.

It's not condescension. You use them because you feel they are a problem for the ToE, somehow.

"There are no vestigials!"
"There are no transitionals!"
"There are no beneficial mutations!"
"There's no increase of information!"
"There are too many gaps!"
Whether you are an evo or a creo the "gaps" exist but only as questions within the discussion.
Then why is it any different from vestigials or transitionals? I'll tell you why: because you think gaps hurt the ToE, and help YEC. Your mistake.
A gap by its very nature is merely an idea. Even a gap between words on a page is empty. But it signifies separation between words.
We call them "gaps" because the words are in the same line.

If i tried to deny that words go in a line, i wouldn't mention the gaps.
The term "gap in the fossil record" signifies a void whether you believe it should be eventually filled or not.
I bet you don't see any between a shoe and a strawberry. Nobody would mention any voids there.

I've brought Lester to the same realization, but he won't face his contradictions.
The contradiction exists only between two different presuppositions.
Yeah!
1) There is a line.
2) There is no line.
The "gap" in question is still merely an idea within the framework of a discussion.
So is the line. And you deny the line while inadvertently admitting it by saying that there are gaps.
As a participant in a discussion of ideas you should be gracious enough to recognize when your acquaintance is representing his point of view or his understanding of your point of view.
I understand. It makes sense, but it's still too far fetched.

I know we do something similar to what you refer to when we say "your sacred book", even though we don't believe it to be sacred. I call many texts "sacred", like the Bhagavad Gita (Sanskrit भगवद्गीता, Bhagavad Gītā, "Song of God", which is much more inspired than the Bible in my humble opinion). But that's just a way of saying. It means "considered sacred by many", or something like that.

It is a word meant to convey an idea and is therefore useful in many a context.
The idea it conveys is that there IS an existing line between the two items separated by the gap.
Exactly. You say "there is a line". I say "if there is a line than it has gaps".
I really see no "ifs".

Ok, i concede it to you that YOU (timbrx) might think that way after reading my OP. But i don't think it's the norm.
You say "we'll fill the gaps in time".
Do we?

The gaps can only multiply, unless we find each and every animal that ever existed. And there are several reasons why certain intermediates are hard to come by. Like reduced populations, climate changes, or different rates of evolution.
I say " I doubt it because I don't believe there is a line".
Ok, then stop saying "gaps".
So we can both use the word gap in the discussion without compromising our respective positions.
If the "sacredness" of the Bible was the subject of the discussion, i would stop calling it "sacred book". I think that would be reasonable.

Second, evolution predicts and implies a stream of continuity to one animal from its supposed ancestor.
Not in the fossil record. Evolution doesn't imply or predict a constant rate of change, a constant population OR a constance of environmental conditions that allow for fossilization to take place.
I said "continuity" not "consistent". Be careful, Mr. Lawyer!
Sorry, i'm not sure i understand. I thought that by "stream of continuity" you meant something constant, or that it would look so in the fossil record. That's what i'm denying. If you meant something else, sorry.

The gaps to an evo are therefore gaps in knowledge (missing link, etc.) not gaps in the process.
Kinda right (although evolutionary jumps can and DO happen, leaving no intermediates).
How very convenient for your belief.
I'm not sure what you're saying.

Are you denying such jumps? Are they even discussed? Don't you need some dramatic ones for the "super diversification" (that looks suspiciously like Evolution) since the ark event?

If you deny them (damning your hypothesis of the ark) i can show you some examples, i think.

Here's one from the top of my head:

The Quebec hawthorn (Crataegus submollis), a tetraploid that differs from it its diploid relatives in many respects (so i've read).

It's produced from the hybridization of two close relatives (both diploids).

Isn't a tethraploidism a big jump? It produces many differences with no intermediates.

But even though you've demonstrated an increase in the quantity of gaps, the overall amount of information between the 1 and 10 has increased.
Yep.
You have demonstrably "filled in the gaps" a little bit at a time.
Yup.

So did the Tiktaalik.

So did the Aardonyx Celestæ.


Finally they found the dino that was turning into sauropods! Awesome!
It was a vegetarian (yes, they know). It was just beginning to put pressure on its forelegs (it wasn't very good at it yet).
I always wondered how that happened. Now i know more about it.

This is quite recent news.

I'm not marveled at all at the fact that it had the right traits, and was found in the right place and stratum (that's always the case). But you should.

They just keep finding them. They always fit. There are so many millions and billions of virtual fossils that, if found, could easily show that the ToE is wrong (giants and unicorns, for instance). None has ever been found.

They keep finding magnificent beasts. Many deserve a lot more attention than the lions, lambs and grasshoppers from the Bible.

In a created world we would expect to find different kinds of animals
Er... Why? Why not a single self-sufficient kind? Why not just us and a solar chemical process to feed us?

Because what we see is what we have.
Then take back your claim that "we would expect". Post hoc stories don't qualify as "expectations".

We do expect. A lot. The ToE really predicts. A lot. The Tiktaalik and the Aardonyx Celestæ fit smoothly in our expectations.

We have a phylogenetic tree. Everything we find must fit, or the tree falls down.

You have nothing, and nothing falls down. Anything we find will meet your explanation: "Because what we see is what we have."

We expect much, and we don't get disappointed.
You expect nothing, and you don't get disappointed.

Your lack of disappointment is worth much less.

(...) with no necessity for a "missing link"
I don't know what you mean by "necessity". We just find them. We don't need them. We didn't need Evolution either.
But evolution needs "missing links" in order to be rational.
Oh... Ok...

In any case, you're saying i'm right about the subject of this thread. Creationism predicts NO missing links (or gaps). It looks like we're clear on this, and Lester was wrong.
Sort of. I don't believe the "gaps" can be filled since I don't believe in the line.
Then drop the "gaps".
No line ---> no gaps.
But for the purpose of discussion I believe that Lester is perfectly right to use the word to "gap" to describe something that both of us see: lack of continuity, in an evolutionary sense,
What's "continuity"? Is it something that would produce a constant rate of change in the fossil record? If so, i don't believe it either.
between kinds of animals.
Are you saying that we see that? I still don't know what a kind is.

My bet is that you don't either. My bet is that you'll never design a useful way to test for kindness.



-------
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: 12:24 AM on November 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:07 AM on November 15, 2009 :


First, Lester must speak to you in terms that you understand.

Shouldn't LESTER understand the terms HE uses?

He recently thought he had me in a GOTCHA moment by indicating that I did not know what 'phenotype' meant because I had mentioned physiology, and when I provided a common definition of phenotype that indicated that physiology IS part of the phenotype, he suddenly went silent.

So, did he not know what phenotype means?  Or did he really know and just hoped that nobody else did - i.e., he was trying to use decpetion?
He claims a background in science and a PhD.  If this is so, then there are so many conclusions that can be drawn (and the phenotype debacle is but one of several such instances - I'm sure you somehow missed them all, though...).


Unfortunately that leads to mocking since you are automatically opposed to anything he says.

Were Lester to stop making ridiculous claims and actually try to understand what he is so against, as opposed to taking the disinformation chirned out in his latest creationist hero's book at face value, we might not be so inclined.


How is it that "gaps"can only be spoken of in evolutionary terms? It is a word meant to convey an idea and is therefore useful in many a context.


And yet none of you folks will either explain what you mean or...

Second, evolution predicts and implies a stream of continuity to one animal from its supposed ancestor. The gaps to an evo are therefore gaps in knowledge (missing link, etc.) not gaps in the process. You expect to eventually fill your gaps. You don't like gaps.

... do something like this - try to tell us what we actually think.

Gaps are not that big of a deal to us.  We understand why there are gaps.  But what those gaps are to us and what they are to you do not seem to be the same thing.  Ask 10 creationists what the gaps in the fossil record are, and 8 of them will not answer.  The two that do will give contradictory answers basedon what their favortie YEC author has claimed.
Denton, for example, indicated that the gaps were between extant taxa - why is there nothing 'between' humans and chimps, for example, if we are related by common descent (he, at least, had theintyegrity to admit that his interpretation of cladogenesis was incorrect).  But you seem to be claiming that the gaps ARE the 'missing' fossils between ancestor and descendant.
This imples that you have some idea about how many there should be.

I know you do not respond to me anymore, since I demonstrated your typical YEC tactics, but it woul dbe nice if you could explain how you know what is implied.

In a created world we would expect to find
different kinds of animals with no necessity for a "missing link" thus the "gaps" that an evo seeks to fill are expected to remain unfilled.

In a created world you expect to find whatever it is that you find.  Which is one of the many reasons that YECism is not truly scientific.  


It's no wonder Lester didn't answer this thread. It is based on either a willful misunderstanding of the concept or a purposeful avenue for derision.



All of which could have been utterly avoided if you people would not make unsup[ported assertions and expect everyone to just believe you.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:59 PM on November 16, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp:
We're talking about gaps. There's not a line that joins cats and dogs, so you're changing the subject.

But does not the big ToE propose a common ancestor? Could that not be represented as a "line" of decent? Are you intentionally obfuscating?

Since when has there ever been a necessity to clarify the idea of a gap? We both recognize that there are "gaps" in the ToE. Right? In any discussion of the fossil record one must expect to refer to "gaps" from time to time, whether it be in defense of ToE or in opposition to ToE.

I don't pretend to answer for Lester. My primary purpose in answering this thread is to prove a point: The debate is not about science, definitions, explanations or even reason. It is about presuppositions ie. WORLDVIEWS.

We've spent what, 13 posts? Running down an empty rabbit trail because because wisp objects to a creo using the word "gap" in discussing evolution? If there is one thing I would dare to hope would come of this it is for wisp to understand "continuity".

derwood:
I know you do not respond to me anymore, since I demonstrated your typical YEC tactics, but it woul dbe nice if you could explain how you know what is implied.


I don't respond to you because you are a condescending ass. Your tactics don't warrant response even if your substance does.
But I can explain how I know what is implied: because it is "implied". That doesn't mean I claim to know what you think. It means that what you say "implies" more meaning than your words convey when taken in the context of the entire discussion.



(Edited by timbrx 11/17/2009 at 10:06 AM).
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:05 AM on November 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 10:05 AM on November 17, 2009 :
derwood:
I know you do not respond to me anymore, since I demonstrated your typical YEC tactics, but it woul dbe nice if you could explain how you know what is implied.


I don't respond to you because you are a condescending ass.


You are just a plain ass.

Of course, I am not the one suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Cultists like you and Lester the PhD holder (LOL!) always use these idiotic outs whenever your pathetic cult beliefs are exposed for what they make you think.

You have nothing but this asinine 'worldview' argument.

Your silly worldview makes you accept conflicting accounts of the same events, believe in unicorns and talking donkeys, a 6000 year old earth, a world-wide flood no more than 4,500 years ago that several advanced civilizations not only lived through but did not seem to notice, etc.


I don't care if you reply or not, Timmy, but I will expose your invincible ignorance to anyone that is interested.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:54 AM on November 17, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We're talking about gaps. There's not a line that joins cats and dogs, so you're changing the subject.
But does not the big ToE propose a common ancestor?
Yes. And there are several gaps from one of those two species up to the common ancestor, and several gaps down to the other species.
Could that not be represented as a "line" of decent?
I see two lines.

Like with my cousin. One line up to our grandparents, another line down to my cousin. If our parents are missing, we have two gaps.

My father is an intermediate between me and my grandfather.

A gap is a lack of an intermediate. Right? Well, there's n possible intermediate between my cousin and i. Therefore, no possible "gap".

Are you intentionally obfuscating?
No. I thought it was easy to understand... I don't know why you say that.
Since when has there ever been a necessity to clarify the idea of a gap?
Since you see a horizontal gap. Very weird.
We both recognize that there are "gaps" in the ToE. Right?
In the ToE?

The gaps are in the fossil record. The ToE can explain them, but they are not a part of the ToE.

If different (unlikely) conditions made everything fossilize, and we could find every animal that ever lived, there would be no gaps, and the ToE would still be fine. So no, gaps are not a part of the ToE.
In any discussion of the fossil record one must expect to refer to "gaps" from time to time, whether it be in defense of ToE or in opposition to ToE.
Yes, just like transitionals.

But you deny the transitionals and accept the gaps, because you didn't think it through.
I don't pretend to answer for Lester.
But you did.
My primary purpose in answering this thread is to prove a point: The debate is not about science, definitions, explanations or even reason.
It's about facts.

Well, we try. You try to avoid that.
It is about presuppositions ie. WORLDVIEWS.
I don't even know what you mean by that. I'd prefer to leave that aside, and discuss facts.
We've spent what, 13 posts? Running down an empty rabbit trail because because wisp objects to a creo using the word "gap" in discussing evolution?
Gaps are a pretty factual thing. Well, they are concepts, but they apply to something factual: the separation between evolutionary states in the same line.

That's what a gap is. If you admit gaps, i don't know what weird definition of them can you give that doesn't trash YEC. It should deny a line, but i don't see how.

Very, very weird.
If there is one thing I would dare to hope would come of this it is for wisp to understand "continuity".
But you didn't explain it to me!

Animals have parents. Is that continuity?

This was said:
Second, evolution predicts and implies a stream of continuity to one animal from its supposed ancestor.
Not in the fossil record. Evolution doesn't imply or predict a constant rate of change, a constant population OR a constance of environmental conditions that allow for fossilization to take place.
I said "continuity" not "consistent". Be careful, Mr. Lawyer!
By the way you corrected me seemingly your concept of "continuity" has nothing to do with gaps. And we were talking about gaps.

You didn't address several issues.

You said i automatically opposed to anything Lester said. You were wrong. You didn't exactly take it back, and you didn't exactly admit your mistake.

Admitting mistakes is not weakness. It's what makes Science strong.

You said that something i said about evolutionary jumps was "very convenient for my belief". I still don't know what you meant. I don't even know if you're denying them. I think i showed you one. I don't even know if you agree. I don't know if you changed your mind, or if you thought i meant something else...

Also this:
In a created world we would expect to find different kinds of animals
Er... Why? Why not a single self-sufficient kind? Why not just us and a solar chemical process to feed us?
Because what we see is what we have.
I see a glaring contradiction there. You said "expect" (that is "anticipate", right?), and then you went ahead and admitted that it was a post hoc rationalization.

The word "expect" conveys a predicting ability. A working model. SOMETHING!

When we "expect" something it's because we predict it.
Your expectation seems to be retroactive, and takes effect only AFTER the "expected" fact.

Please, address this.

I don't mean to win an argument by technicalities. I assumed that when you said "expect" you meant something real.
If you now realize that you didn't, please, admit it.

You said we saw a lack of continuity between kinds of animals.

I still don't know what "continuity" or "kinds" are.

Would you please define them?



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:48 PM on November 17, 2009 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

There are also "gaps" in evolution which i have stated in other posts.

Since creation is largly unexplanible in a scientifice way the only defense i can state is that there has to be some form of creation that is true since the "gaps" in evolution disprove evolution. So since science has no explination some form of creation has to be correct. I hope we all have the same idea about what the term "creation" means. If someone dousn't please leave a post.

Remember, Ihave stated evidence and facts that disprove or at least leave gaps in the theory of evolution.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 3:50 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from The Debater at 3:50 PM on November 25, 2009 :
So since science has no explination some form of creation has to be correct.


God of the gaps argument. A few hundred years ago science didn't know how the orbits of planets worked, now we do. Each time science comes up with an answer your view of God gets smaller and smaller until it is pointless to assert that God magically did 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: 5:35 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from The Debater at 9:50 PM on November 25, 2009 :
There are also "gaps" in evolution which i have stated in other posts.
Mis-use of the word stated (def: declared as fact;), Asserted (def: stated, declared or alleged, especially with confidence but no proof) would be the correct term.

Since creation is largly unexplanible in a scientifice way
and therefore should not be looked upon as a science
the only defense i can state is that there has to be some form of creation that is true since the "gaps" in evolution disprove evolution. So since science has no explination some form of creation has to be correct.

Nonsense. Even if evolution were proved false tomorrow, that does not make creationism true. Silly boy.
 I hope we all have the same idea about what the term "creation" means. If someone dousn't please leave a post.
Maybe you should tell us what you think it means, just to avoid confusion.


Remember, Ihave stated evidence and facts that disprove or at least leave gaps in the theory of evolution.
erm, no, you haven't. (Unless maybe I missed it. Can you quote it for us?)





-------
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: 5:52 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok it may not prove creation.

Here is a extract from one of my posts:

Darwin (establisher of the concept of evolution) left a loop hole in his theory (which he ignoliged) that said in a simple form that evolution is incorrect if a organism cannot survive without a structure that is devoloping through evolution. Modern biology has proven that single celled organisms are so compleck that they could not survive if they were missing one of there structures. So if every thing "evolved" the entire organism would have to apper all at once at the time the species came into exsestence. That is not possible.

One example of this would a cell membrane. It controls what goes in and out of a cell. Without it the cell would fall apart.

Please give a defense statement thaat doesn't infulve tearing apart what I've typed like a reporter.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 7:05 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from The Debater at 7:05 PM on November 25, 2009 :
One example of this would a cell membrane. It controls what goes in and out of a cell. Without it the cell would fall apart.


Perform the Miller-Urey experiment and produce a mixture of amino acids.  Take the mixture and pour it over a hot lava rock.

Protocells form spontaneously, so cell walls are not hard to produce.




-------
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: 9:18 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Debater
There are also "gaps" in evolution which i have stated in other posts.
This thread is about gaps in the fossil record.

Start relevant threads. Don't mess up this one.


(Edited by wisp 11/25/2009 at 9:57 PM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:55 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm eager to read an answer to my questions...

I think the Aardonyx Celestæ deserves a thread.



-------
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: 9:39 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:12 PM on May 29, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No support then? Another empty assertion?


-------
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: 12:51 AM on June 3, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:01 AM on August 5, 2010 in the thread Louis Pasteur:
Derwood, about Pogge
One wonders why anyone would take such an obvious egomaniacal Dunning-Krugerite seriously.
Perhaps because he uses evidential support for what he asserts and thus makes far more practical sense than you do.
Sorry, what? Something about evidential support?


-------
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: 9:16 PM on August 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, feel free to chime in.

Remember your claim:
Lester
Systematic gaps in the fossil record are a prediction of creation, not evolution.
Poor claim, no support...



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:12 PM on December 27, 2010 | IP
EaZiE

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, not having the links in the fossil, much more the living record, is a great weakness in the theory of evolution.  If evolution were true we would expect to find these transitions.  What we see is substantially unique species living with only a semblance of similarity.  I know evolutionists link humans to the monkeys; what is it that they link the monkeys to?  A Google search gets Joe Bloggs and teddy bears.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 12:48 PM on January 27, 2011 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EaZiE at 11:48 AM on January 27, 2011 :
Yes, not having the links in the fossil, much more the living record, is a great weakness in the theory of evolution.  If evolution were true we would expect to find these transitions.  What we see is substantially unique species living with only a semblance of similarity.  I know evolutionists link humans to the monkeys; what is it that they link the monkeys to?  A Google search gets Joe Bloggs and teddy bears.


The fossil record isn't good a providing transitional fossils from one species to another. But it is, however, very good at providing transitional forms from one major step to another. Fishapods like Tiktaalik are good for the transition from sea to land. Labyrinthodonts (Here's a good site: reptile evolution) are good for the transition between amphibians and reptiles; Synapsids from reptile to mammal; Archeoteryx and microraptor show the transition from theropod dinosaurs to modern day birds. There's a ton of stuff on whale and horse evolution too.

There's also quite a few of transitionals when it comes to human evolution. You rarely see biologists talk about the human-monkey connection; usually human evolution means our unique evolutionary history since we diverged from chimpanzees about 7 million years ago. If you go further back in time you are only talking about human evolution as it pertains to whatever group those distant ancestors of ours were in at the time. So about 20 million years ago the great apes (our ancestors) diverged from monkeys, and about 60 million years ago primates diverged from other mammals and so on.

I know you are looking for evidence for macroevolution. Don't know why I didn't post this earlier, but here it is: 29+ evidence for macroevolution


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 3:11 PM on January 27, 2011 | IP
EaZiE

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All I can say is I just don't buy it.  I'm a bit amazed that it's enough for anyone;  then to further use it as a reason to deny God.  It seems more evident to me that people are starting from a rejection of God and looking something to fill the void.  It's the story of Darwin's life.  If y'all evolutionists are happy then good for you.  I just don't see how denying God, whether you are living right or not, can make you happy.  I honestly just want to make sure you are not missing out on something that to me is very real.  
I asked my friend who doesn't believe in God what he thought about evolution.  He said he's not too sure.  Then he told me he doesn't really have the time to think about it.  That is where I fall.  I want to believe the truth in all matters of life so I'm trying to give evolution a fair chance.  It's a little difficult with the immaturity you run into from those promoting it.   William James thought that evolution would be the same vehicle that drove atheism as it would theism.  Though not a believer per se, he figured that the more pragmatic was religious experience.  I'm not getting anything practical benefit from Darwin's theory.  I do respect your zeal for discovery though.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 4:37 PM on January 28, 2011 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EaZiE at 3:37 PM on January 28, 2011 :
All I can say is I just don't buy it.  I'm a bit amazed that it's enough for anyone;


There's a lot to the theory and there is a ton of evidence from multiple disciplines. I never read the book you're reading, but I do know that one book cannot hold all the evidence for evolution, let alone at a very detailed level where those who go to school learn it at that level.

There are very good reasons/evidence why a person should accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the unity and diversity of life. As far as I know, everyone here is willing to sit down and go over those reasons with you, and everyone's knowledge is different.

then to further use it as a reason to deny God.  It seems more evident to me that people are starting from a rejection of God and looking something to fill the void.  It's the story of Darwin's life.  If y'all evolutionists are happy then good for you.  I just don't see how denying God, whether you are living right or not, can make you happy.  I honestly just want to make sure you are not missing out on something that to me is very real.


There is nothing in evolution that denies God; I myself was a theistic evolutionist for most of my life. I read about evolution in my spare time, studied it in college, and never once felt spiritually threatened by evolution. It was just simply another truth, one of the many mechanisms God used to create the world around us. For me evolution didn't attack God any more than gravity, the water cycle, or germ theory attacked God.

This is further evidenced by people like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, both understand evolution just fine and yet accept a theistic God, specifically the Christian God. Even in college, several of my professors are Christian and had no problem accepting evolution, it is just a non-issue with them.

I want to believe the truth in all matters of life so I'm trying to give evolution a fair chance.  It's a little difficult with the immaturity you run into from those promoting it.


Perhaps, but look at what they have to deal with. Creationists are known to be dishonest, misrepresent data and fact, outright lie, ignore errors they make, refuse to correct those errors, continually use the same argument and/or data after it's been refuted multiple times. In the end it isn't rare to see a creationist just spit out a mantra about God, the Bible, and tell everyone that they'll go to Hell if they don't recant evolution and accept Creationism. I've even seen one creationist call a few people "Satanic Vampires", including fellow Christians that just didn't buy into the creationist paradigm.

I'm not getting anything practical benefit from Darwin's theory.  I do respect your zeal for discovery though.


Well, maybe not when it comes to your job or whatever you study in school. But it has had a profound impact within the medical field. The flu vaccine, for example, is only possible because of the theory of evolution. Understanding evolutionary theory is also helpful with things like therapy for panic attacks, and genetic diseases like Huntington's. It's even useful when it comes to things like agriculture and making sure crops aren't wiped out by diseases or plagues.

So while your life may not directly revolve around evolutionary theory, it has been impacted by it through medicine and agriculture.


-------
"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: 7:33 PM on January 28, 2011 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EaZiE at 2:48 PM on January 27, 2011 :
Yes, not having the links in the fossil, much more the living record, is a great weakness in the theory of evolution.
Please, consider reading the title of the thread.

Show me how creationism predicts gaps, or start a thread about how weak the Theory of Evolution is.

If evolution were true we would expect to find these transitions.
These? Start a thread and tell us which ones, and what do you have to back up that assertion.

What we see is substantially unique species living with only a semblance of similarity.
No, we see a clear tree-like pattern.

If you're willing and able to discuss that, start a thread.

I know evolutionists link humans to the monkeys;
We ARE monkeys. Objectively so.
what is it that they link the monkeys to?
Everything else.

Objectively so.


Now, care to support the creationist claim of this thread, or start your own?



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:46 AM on January 29, 2011 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EaZiE at 6:37 PM on January 28, 2011 :
All I can say is I just don't buy it.
And you have said it. And i'm underwhelmed.

Is that it?



Why do we have those in the right strata?


And these too:



Why do we have feathered and even winged winosaurs?


Where do apes leave off and humans begin?




Did you know that the Tiktaalik was once missing in the series, so they went looking for it in the exact location and in the exact stratum, and they found it?

What's your explanation? Are they wizards?


I'm a bit amazed that it's enough for anyone;
Your clueless amazement is worthless.

Can you actually discuss things, instead of just being amazed?

then to further use it as a reason to deny God.
Huh?

Which god?

Each and every scientific fact can be used by anyone to dismiss any deities that would require for that fact to be false.

If your particular deity (unknown, is it?) created living things in more or less their current form, then your myth is false and so is your deity.

It seems more evident to me that people are starting from a rejection of God and looking something to fill the void.
People with different gods and creation myths could say the same thing about you.

Your branch of creationism (which isn't even clear so far) is just one among many.

Here you have some:

Babylonian Creation Myth

African Creation Myth - Olori

Korean Creation Myth

Japanese Creation Myth

Navajo Creation Myth

Norse Creation Myth

Creation Myth from India

Comanche Creation Myth

Chinese Creation Myth

Chelan Creation Myth

Pima Creation Myth

Mayan Creation Myth

Miwok Creation Myth

Scandinavian (Norse) Creation Myths

Salish Creation Myth

Australian Aboriginal Creation Myth

Hopi Creation Myth

Tahitian Creation Myth

Yokut Creation Myth

Comanche Creation Myth

Egyptian Creation Myths

African - Mande, Yoruba Creation Myths

Micmac Creation Myth

Lakota Creation Myth

Assyrian / Babylonian Creation Myth

Maori Creation Myth

Aztec Creation Myth

Digueno Creation Myth

Apache Creation Myth

Several African Creation Myths

Dakota Creation Myth

Hungarian Creation Myth

Iroquois Creation Myth

Inuit Creation Myth

Huron Creation Myth

Hawaiian Creation Myth

Flying Spaghetti Monster Creation Myth

And there are several Creation Stories: India, Romania, Mongol, etc... Really, hundreds of them.

Yours isn't special.

It's the story of Darwin's life.  If y'all evolutionists are happy then good for you.  I just don't see how denying God, whether you are living right or not, can make you happy.
You know what would make me happy? For you to stop diverging and actually start discussing things.

But apparently all you give us is empty assertions, timid hints, vague declamations and red herrings.


I honestly just want to make sure you are not missing out on something that to me is very real.
The way to do that is showing us something very real.

Start threads and let's look at that, if you have anything.

I asked my friend who doesn't believe in God what he thought about evolution.  He said he's not too sure.  Then he told me bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
Nah, i got tired.



-------
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: 03:45 AM on January 29, 2011 | IP
Taq

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EaZiE at 09:48 AM on January 27, 2011 :
Yes, not having the links in the fossil, much more the living record, is a great weakness in the theory of evolution.


You are looking at it from the wrong direction.  The strength of a theory is based on it's ability to explain the data we DO have, not the data we do not have.  The theory of evolution perfectly explains the fossils we do have, including thousands of known transitional fossils.

If evolution were true we would expect to find these transitions.


False.  The theory of evolution only states that these organisms existed.  It says nothing about their rate of fossilization or the probability of us finding those fossils after such a scant search of Earth's sediments.

 
What we see is substantially unique species living with only a semblance of similarity.


And that semblance falls into a nested hierarchy, as predicted by the theory of evolution.  This is why the fossil record is such stunning evidence in support of the theory, because the theory was able to predict the mixture of characteristics in fossils that we should see before they were even discovered.

 
I know evolutionists link humans to the monkeys; what is it that they link the monkeys to?  A Google search gets Joe Bloggs and teddy bears.


You have been shown the transitional fossils that link us with our common ancestor with chimps.  If these supposed gaps are a problem for evolution then the fossils that fill these gaps are surely evidence for evolution and evidence against creationism/ID, are they not?


 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 2:54 PM on February 2, 2011 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

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

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

 

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