[cauthon]

Keep up the debate, I'm very busy right now, I'll post asap.

[Dolorous Menhir]

potsherds;128035 said:

She!?! I hope you are talking about Shiara or myself. Actually, that's a lie. I hope you are really talking about me. Shiara's a nice, polite poster; I'm not.

He's probably addressing me, I'm the one who took actual quotes from the Bible and said they were wrong (because they are, demonstrably so). It seems to be a common misconception on the board that I am a woman, even though people who've read the Malazan books should know the difference between "dolorous" and "Dolores".

[Demon X]

Wow, this thread has gotten large.

@Dough Boy: I'm sorry if I come across as being rude, but it seems to me that the only thing that you can prove is the fact that there is a book called the bible which speaks about God creating the Universe. Other than that, everything you say is based on the fact that you beleive, without pause, that everything that is said in the bible is 100% true! That is NOT evidence!

You can quote excerp's from the bible until the sun burns out, but you will continue to get the same response from everybody on this thread unless you stop coming accross as a crazed evangelist and start debating like a rational individual!

(I'm sure I'll get neg rep for this one)

[D Man]

dough boy;127992 said:

I will say that I am going to focus on Valgard's responses because he was the most reasonable and respectful. That indicates to me a person who I would rather converse with. I am not, however, ignoring the challenges brought up to me about the Bible's statements on Creation. Perhaps, if there is a truly sincere interest in clearing up those apparent contradictions, etc. about the Bible, it should be done on a thread about the Bible. Let me know if any of you are truly interested in seeing the evidence. I look forward to your replies.

To start out with, Religion has very little to do with what the Bible actually says. Religion has misapplied and added much to the Bible, so to me, a study in religion is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches. I am familiar with what the Jews believe, I have attended a Bible training course, and I have 30 years of credentials. I don't say this to impress anyone, which I doubt you folks would be anyhow. I want to let you know that I have studied all kinds of religions in much detail, from Judaism, to Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Catholicism, Mythology, Islam and Modern Disbelief. I am familiar with what all kinds of Religions teach, and I have discovered that very few teach what the Bible says. So, please don't throw up what other religions teach, I am well familiar with their doctrines and they don't teach what the Bible says. I was under the impression that the debate was over Evolution vs Creation, not Evolution vs Religion. There is a difference, and my mention of the Catholic Church's lack of truth in all matters was to bring home that point. Just b/c a religion has taught a doctrine, and they say it's in the Bible, doesn't make it true.

I'm not talking about just beliefs. I am talking about proveable truth. But, there are different avenues of proof. If you feel that the only proof you will consider is other statements, papers, publications and experiments that other people have made in regards to, in a broad sense, science, and evolution, then I suppose there is nothing further for me to say. Truth is not blind, and although some have taken exception to my statement that I have examined all the evidence, all the evidence that I have examined has not convinced me of evolution. Please don't get bogged down by semantics.

I have not only considered the Bible as evidence of creation. How narrow minded that would be. I have had secular education, I have read many secular sources, spoken with those in the scientific field, read textbooks and journals from the scientific medical field. My background is in Chemistry, so no, I have not delved deeply into biology or physics.

Your request for a list of names of those who do not support the lack of intelligent design of the universe will be granted, only if your reason is not to just challenge me. Valgard, I get the impression you are more open minded and objective. I will mention a couple of names off the top of my head.

Although an agnostic, Robert Jastrow felt that the Astronomical and Biblical accounts of the Creation account were the same.

British Astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle said that "Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through blind forces, it seems better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate, intellectual act". Forgive me for not having the book handy I copied that quote from in my notes from years ago. It may be one still sitting on the library shelf.

Physics professor F. Dyson said that the more he examined the universe and studied the details of it's architecture, the more evidence there was that the universe, or a person of the universe, in some sense must have known that we were coming, the we referring to mankind and other creatures.

He went on to say that he felt that this did not necessarily prove the existence of God, but that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays and essential role in its function.

If you want more names, that will take me time to drag out all of my notes and references. Here's a few more that I remember.

Have you heard of Michael J. Behe, a Biochemist who is a professor at the Lehigh University in the U.S. ? He wrote a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box- The Biochemical change to evolution". In the decade since his book was published, evolutionary scientists have scrambled to counter the arguments he raised. Talk about red herrings- Critics accused him of allowing his religious convictions to cloud his scientific judgement. Read it for yourself. You may reach the same conclusions. He still is a professor, though. He is still a respected scientist.

How about Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig- a researcher involved with the genetic mutation in plants. He is from Germany. He works for the Max Planck institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany.

Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka is a geologist employed by the Geological Survey in Arizona. He asked himself how reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution? He feels as I do- that the geologic record is incomplete. He said that evolutionists have repeatedly failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processess in the labratory with the use of scientific methodologies. I agree. Have you found differently?

Paula Kincheloe from Atlanta, Georgia is involved in molecular biology and microbiology. She felt that DNA and RNA proteins and metabolic pathways showed evidence of design.

Perhaps I have a different understanding of evolution, but please don't say I don't understand it. I am not confused about it. The supposed evidence mentioned- the fossil record is open to interpretation. Despite the arguements about the great gaps and jumps in it, some are ready to say that there must be an explanation, we just haven't found it yet. That is the conjecture I speak of.

Genetic mutation does not support evolution. I can talk about that more later.

Adaptations do not prove evolution. It proves that life on this planet can sustain itself, and change is necessary for that. Do you think a Creator might be aware of that, and has allowed for it? I am talking in a broad sense, b/c I don't want to get bogged down with details that I have to unpack from my attic.

I have heard the argument that information presented from scientists throughout history are too old to be relevant. Have you stopped to think that maybe the information we consider today will someday also be irrelevant? That leads me to wonder how much trust can we put in what man "discovers" or comes up with.

I think I mentioned that Science has brought us much. I respect true Scientists, and what has been accomplished. That doesn't mean I refer to only those that believe in Creation. I respect those who don't become deeply entrenched and emotional about their understanding of the world around us. The statement I made about some scientist's egos was not to be a blanket statement for all- and that was made because of what I have heard from them, and what other, more objective scientists have made about their own colleagues.

True, I will agree with those that state that Religion has done much damage to the earth and mankind. We should be better for Religion, if it is true. But it is not the Bible that encourages people to kill, in fact Ghandi stated that if leaders of nations could get together and apply the principles found in Jesus' sermon on the mount, the world will have solved its social problems. Again, the problem is not in the Bible, it's in the misapplication of its truths. By the way, starvation is caused, not by the earth's inability to produce, but by greedy men and governments who oppress people. Some sicknesses are brought about by people's refusal to apply Bible principles, something medicine wouldn't have to address in the first place if we didn't smoke, overdrink, or overeat. (Yes, there are priniciples in the Bible that can be applied to smoking)

As to the statements made by another participant about the Bible and it's apparent weaknesses, again, I can address those in another thread, if you want the real insight into things. She seems to be pulling quotes and statements from websites by people who have no real understanding of the structure of the Bible. Apparent contradictions and misunderstandings can be cleared up and investigated on another thread. I will say that it's true that the Bible is not a science textbook, but when it does touch on these matters, it is accurate. I will repeat that, but post evidence for it on the Bible thread if anyone is interested. But I will not waste time in a debate about words, for the sole purpose of debate. My purpose is to draw attention to things you may never have been shown before.

My purpose in joining this is because I can impart a hope for the future based on what the Bible holds out. I never said anywhere in my first posting that evolutionists will go to hell. That is a teaching from False Religion. That's not taught in the Bible, along with a host of other doctrines that are not from the Bible, but have their roots in False Religion dating back centuries ago. But, in order for that hope to be achieved, the obstacle of a belief in evolution has to be addressed. How can one get to know the Creator if he can't believe he exists?

As I have time, I will check to see if anyone is curious about these things about the Bible on another thread. I am a teacher and a parent, so I have a busy schedule. Don't be offended if I don't post every day. If you want to dismiss it, that is your choice.

Damn, dude, you have a lot to say!

I'll keep to the relevant parts

As has already been said: there is not a variety of provable truths.

Science is essentially allowing nature to tell you how it works. Anything else is trying to tell nature how it works. Now you can imagine many things (and imagination is also very important to science!) but proof involves evidence, logic and verification.

Subjective experience, interpretation of events and feelings are not a kind of proof and there are many methods of reasoning that appear logical in their context, but without application to the world around you: asking reality “I had an idea about you, is it right?” it’s just so much talk. You can fool yourself. Indeed, as Feynman said, "The easiest person to fool is yourself".

Calling evolution conjecture is playing a word game. 'Conjecture' in this case is 'model'. Its an idea of a process that explains the history and diversity of life on this earth. Then we have all sorts of evidence that supports this conjecture:

The succession of fauna (from nothing but bateria for 3 billion years to simple multicellular life to simple organisms, to more complex ones, always increasing in diversity and being occasionally nearly wiped out)
Observed adaptations and so-called micro-evolution
Genetics: This is a very important one. You see, when Darwin conjectured that an organism may change over time to adapt to environmental conditions he stated clearly that a mechanism to inherit discrete characteristics is needed, and that that mechanism must be able to allow changes. This describes genetics without saying "genetics".

That, my friend, is a prediction. The view at the time was that characteristics are blended when two animals mate. That may often appear to be the case where many genes are at work, but its in contradiction with basic genetics. Darwin said that without this mechanism his theory would fail. We found that mechanism 150 years later: DNA. In the paper detailing the discovery of DNA, it was humbly written "It has not escaped our attention that this chemical may provide a mechanism for inheritance compatible with Darwinian evolution" (not the exact quote: I paraphrased it as accurately as I could).

You also seem to be confusing objectivity with states of emotionality. The egotistical scientists are contrasted against the 'more objective' ones, you linked Valgards 'open mindedness' with objectivity. Something is either objective or not, and its near impossible for a human being to be objective: you view everything new you encounter in terms of what you already know. That introduces cognitive bias to all viewpoints. To do otherwise is impossible. However, science itself is objective. Its more accurate to say that a scientist USES objectivity than HAS it. Its a way of thinking and evaluating the evidence that’s available. We just say that someone ‘is’ objective when they use an objective way of thinking: not colouring interpretations with what they already believe to be true.

An objective viewpoint must also require an object. You can only be objective about whats around you now, in the real world: 'objective reality'. So using any book or thing someone otherwise told you to talk about reality is un-objective. There’s no object there: only something someone said. That’s why any discussion about reality needs to be based in reality: in science this takes the form of independent repetition of experiments and confirmation of observations. And that’s why anything the bible has to say is null and void wheh talking about reality: its just talking about the bible talking about reality. Verification takes the form of

"The bible says this!"
"Oh, yeah, so it does!"

You cut the object out of the objectivity!

Now, remembering the nature of objectivity, lets have a look at the guys you referenced.

First of all: all of these statements are without any internal logic. They are, one and all, simple conclusions, just hanging there, based on nothing. You presented them appropriately, saying “So And So says….”, making it just the opinion of So And So. I want that to be completely clear: these are regurgitated opinions, with no verification even hinted at. If anyone disagrees, please call me up on it.

You have presented these opinions, which is all they can possibly be to us, as authoritative. i.e. You have presented the person stating the opinion in a position of authority by saying they are a whatever and work wherever, and appear to have believed them for that reason (plus, of course, the cognitive bias that they espouse what you already believe).

They are arguments from authority!

Very common, indeed the norm, in religious circles, but totally unscientific.

But lets think about what these guys think anyway, just for kicks.

dough boy;127992 said:

Although an agnostic, Robert Jastrow felt that the Astronomical and Biblical accounts of the Creation account were the same.

Then hes an idiot. Biblical:

Nothing  Earth  earth + sun and moon  life. And the life is in the wrong order, plants didn’t come first, bacteria did (but the bible doesn’t mention those: the single most important phylogeny in the world, because the people that wrote it didn’t have any idea they were there)

Astronomical, in highly simplified terms adjusted to feature the same general stuff for comparison sake:

Nothing  matter  light  sun  earth  the moon  life.

They aren’t even the same progression of events. They are only similar up to and including “Nothing”.

dough boy;127992 said:

British Astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle said that "Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through blind forces, it seems better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate, intellectual act". Forgive me for not having the book handy I copied that quote from in my notes from years ago. It may be one still sitting on the library shelf.

Hoyle was basically a good scientist that was wrong about everything. Some trivia for you: it was him that coined “The Big Bang”, as a derisive term for a theory he disagreed with. He had an alternative that was falsifiable (as postherds says: steady state). That’s good science because he had an idea you could prove wrong.

However saying that “Life is improbable, so something intelligent did it” is indeed pure conjecture. No objectivity at all. He couldn’t envisage how it could be done, so he conjectured, unfalsifiably, that it was designed or guided.

So he made an argument from incredulity that you used as an argument from authority! And this is ‘evidence’?

dough boy;127992 said:

Physics professor F. Dyson said that the more he examined the universe and studied the details of it's architecture, the more evidence there was that the universe, or a person of the universe, in some sense must have known that we were coming, the we referring to mankind and other creatures.

He went on to say that he felt that this did not necessarily prove the existence of God, but that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays and essential role in its function.

If you want more names, that will take me time to drag out all of my notes and references. Here's a few more that I remember.

Dyson was being most un-objective. This is also conjecture, based, in essence, on arrogance. That we are here in the universe doesn’t mean the universe was especially made for us! That’s based on the assumption that we are somehow special. We have a certain self importance, undoubtedly, but lets try not to let it extend to thinking that the whole universe is for us. That’s a subjective and emotional interpretation of the fact that the universe is suitable for at least our kind of life.

Also, see the weak anthropic principle. Not a proof, but an objective and somewhat fatalistic way of looking at the suitability of this universe for us.

Moreover, we just have no idea what would be possible in another universe. We’ve never lived in a different one.

dough boy;127992 said:

Have you heard of Michael J. Behe, a Biochemist who is a professor at the Lehigh University in the U.S. ? He wrote a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box- The Biochemical change to evolution". In the decade since his book was published, evolutionary scientists have scrambled to counter the arguments he raised. Talk about red herrings- Critics accused him of allowing his religious convictions to cloud his scientific judgement. Read it for yourself. You may reach the same conclusions. He still is a professor, though. He is still a respected scientist.

Yes, most people that are familiar with the current incarnation of the creation/evolution debate know who this gut is. And his basic idea is unscientific because it itself cannot be falsified. And yes, its very possible that his religious upbringing biased him. He tried to disprove something that he claimed was conjecture with a greater conjecture and got his ass handed to him by every scientific institution and the US supreme court. Go Behe!

dough boy;127992 said:

How about Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig- a researcher involved with the genetic mutation in plants. He is from Germany. He works for the Max Planck institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, Germany.

And he said………….

dough boy;127992 said:

Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka is a geologist employed by the Geological Survey in Arizona. He asked himself how reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution? He feels as I do- that the geologic record is incomplete. He said that evolutionists have repeatedly failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processess in the labratory with the use of scientific methodologies. I agree. Have you found differently?

The language of this paragraph is very revealing. That you chose to state that he “feels as you do” I don’t care what he feels, and I don’t care that you believed it so easily because you already agreed.

Hes made a bold claim, though. I’d like to see some of his actual reasoning…which is lamentably absent.

dough boy;127992 said:

Paula Kincheloe from Atlanta, Georgia is involved in molecular biology and microbiology. She felt that DNA and RNA proteins and metabolic pathways showed evidence of design.

Again: “feel”. You could say that you feel snowflakes show evidence of design. They are extremely complex, cannot be repeated exactly, and the probability of a snowflake having whatever shape it does is infinitesimal. They all must have been made by god, up in the clouds. An unthinking process surely couldn’t create such order!

But alas, its still just a feeling that leads to a conjecture that has no object to be objective about. Shame.

dough boy;127992 said:

Perhaps I have a different understanding of evolution, but please don't say I don't understand it. I am not confused about it. The supposed evidence mentioned- the fossil record is open to interpretation. Despite the arguements about the great gaps and jumps in it, some are ready to say that there must be an explanation, we just haven't found it yet. That is the conjecture I speak of.

Then we’re talking about a different conjecture.

I’m not saying you don’t understand evolution. But please post ‘your understanding’ of it’ so we can see if it lines up with the reality. That’s a challenge to your understanding, yes, but a perfectly valid one, after all, you cant just tell an examiner “Maybe I have a different understanding, please don’t say that I don’t understand it” if you were studying it properly.

The fossil record is unclear on some species and timescales of a few hundred thousand years. With all taken into account over the billions of years that it goes back it screams “LIFE EVOLVED”. Were it designed we could see fish before bacteria, reptiles before fish, dinosaurs before reptiles, birds before dinosaurs, monkeys before shrews, men before apes. We don’t. The scheme of it is one of development and linear changes down isolated lines of descent. Evolution.

The holes you speak of will never be filled. At every stage you can say “Well theres something missing between this and that!”. And unless we have a fossil for every animal, plant, prokaryote and amoeba that theres ever been the fossil record will never provide a satisfactory ‘proof’, and it will always be ‘conjecture’ the other intermediate life forms existed.

However, things like archaeopteryx and tiktaalik, and crucially, when such animals lived is proof.

Take tiktaalik, for example. For decades scientists have been saying that life started in the sea, and fish were very early life. Then it appears on land! Oh, no! How the hell did a fish start wandering about on legs. Cue much derision from creationists. But then tiktaalik turns up: a fish with stronger pectorals than normal and lobe fins with distinct wrists in them: it was able to move clumsily on land, probably swamps, and swim. Plus, it comes right in between lungfish and the first primitive amphibians.

Evolution made a prediction that such a creature would be there, and we found it. That, my friend is good quality objective science. And its also only one little bit of icing on the evidence cake: it just happens to be a new and trendy discovery.

And that is clearly enough typing. I’m hungry.

[Cause]

dough boy;128223 said:

2. My statement about how we can cause much of our own need for medicine is not from the days of "midwives and witchcraft". It is common sense. Much of viruses and harmful bacteria can be restrained by simple cleanliness- like doctors learning to wash their hands before going to deliver a baby after visiting the morgue. Basic. But even until the late 19th century, doctors were still doing this. They learned and applied this simple knowledge, that, by the way, was in the Bible, in God's law to the Israelites. Kind of got overlooked, eh? Even cancers can be prevented- not smoking, (Lung cancer) Not having unprotected sex with many partners (Cervical) Staying out of the sun at certain times of the day and wearing hats, and sunscreen and such. As for the unfortuante genes, well, that is one of the cases that had not been preventable before, but neither did I say that every conceivable disease could be prevented.

This is all mostly true. You are less likely to get diseased if you stay clean, less likely to get an std witghout having sec less likely to get cancer if you dont smoke. But I would still like chemo to be around in case I get cancer. I will presume you do as well.

Quote

3. In case you hadn't noticed, I have not been the one who has referred to Bible quotes as much as some of the other, b/c I am trying to respect what others have called for- that I refrain from using the Bible as the primary proof for why Creation is more logical. On that note, I believe it was DMan who mentioned Logic. I agree with your definition of logic, but I do not believe that science is not also subjective. It is not completely objective. Humans cannot be completely objective in the strictest sense, so because of that, any endeavour we take cannot be strictly objective.

So what is your proof excactly? Evolution is impossible that leaves creation? Yes science can suffer from the subjectivity of science but this wonderfull thing called peer review comes into play and than fixes it. The end result is the truth.

Quote

4. I am not a member of the discovery institute. I live in Canada & attended school here. As for secular education, I don't know if a B.Sc. Pharm, M. Sc. achieved at the University of Alberta would be acceptable credentials for you or not, but I haven't questioned anyone else's credentials, why are mine questioned? Because I believe in Creation? Which, by the way, my request to have Creation disproved scientifically has been ignored. No where did I say that the Bible was my "champion for proof", I have merely stated that when it does touch on Science, it has been accurate. As for the progression of appearance of flora and fauna in Gen 1 & 2, is anyone really interested in a breakdown of it? Really? Will it even be read? I have been accused of not reading everything, but I don't think the responders have read and understood everything I have said either. For eg: I have repeated that hellfire is not a Bible teaching, and yet there has been more than one reference to it since my initial response to that topic.

Yes, please do go through it. We want your full argument so we can counter or accept it.

Quote

6. Perhaps there are observed adaptations, but this is not a basis for proof of evolution.

But its one small part of many that add up to equal evolution

Quote

I will say that Dman came up with some compelling arguements in his post, but again, to argue what is reality in this strict sense cannot be done. What one person's reality is different from someone else's.

What? I may think a boiling pot took longer to cook than my friend but our watches will both agree it took 5 minutes. Their is only one reality.

Quote

Much of the evidence brought forth to support evolution is based on many variables.

You cant do a science degree without at least some education in statistics.

Quote

Not to mention, the integrity in the conducting of experiments, the integrity in reviewing and confirming observations. Really, Science is objective, and subjective. Remember that when we study in University- that is what we are doing- using textbooks written by other humans who have relied on others information. We may be able to repeat experiments in class, but do we repeat every single test, experiment, observation? NO. We take much of it at face value b/c we choose to trust our professors.

We may not repeat evry expirement but we could if we chose to or had the time. But importantly the experiments have been repeated maybe not by you or your professor but someone had to peer review it. Someone did it after reading the paper and yes they all agree or else we have a second counter paper and we find the truth. This in contrast to the bible or creation in which we cant repeat observe or well test anything

Quote

7. Leading me to my next statement which is going to stir everybody up to the point of apoplexy. Get ready: (Are you sitting down?) Evolutions favorite arguement is that because it's a process that takes "thousands of millions of years" it's impossible to prove in the same way as what I mentioned before- observable science. That is convenient. Because none of us has lived that long, or have records to point to, that cannot be confirmed. Carbon Dating and Radioactive Dating are not 100% reliable methods. They are somewhat useful. Geologists find generally good support in radiometric dating for their theories on the history of the earth, although MOST OF THE DATES ARE FAR FROM CERTAIN. I thought science was 100% certainty!

Their is only one school of acedamia that purports to or can give 100% certainty. This is of course maths. 1+1=2. Its proven never changes and has never failed. All else is the best model,theory, statistical chance. But please dont misuderstand me. Just cause science cant prove a ting does not mean its not right,

Quote

Paleontologists keep looking for support from radiometric dating for the claims that supposed fossils of ape men are millions of years old. It's not there, in the full scientific sense. Don't ask me to prove that- prove to me that it is!

Actually the onus of proving claims falls on the claimant.

Quote

The simple fact that there are too many variables on this earth and in the universe to predict, or even try to copy what may or may not have happened before man came on the scene prevent a major problem for believing in evolution. That seems logical, does it not? Maybe oversimplified, but still logical. Remember, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. (I can lay bets on this being a bone of contention for some. I still like you all. I know that that has made you all feel warm and fuzzy.)

Okhams razor or whatever the hell its called is not science. The correct answer is the correct answer which ever one it may prove to be. All else is simple tools or gues work to help get you to the end

Quote

It has been demanded of me to provide proof of my statements. I agree that Real proof is not hearsay. But much of what evolutionists believe has been just that, and they have accepted it b/c it fits with their logic, just as much as you may say that some christians do. I am not a member of a protestant church, I don't believe in the Nazarenes or what any of them teach. I am a christian, but not a creationist. I do not lobby in governments to say that only Creation should be taught in schools, so do not lump me in a group because you need to put a label on me.

Science has:
Peer review
Experimental data
Observable evidence
concrete data

Science never works on hearsay.

Quote

I will say this in regards to proof- Proof is also not saying that the gaps in the evolution theory are minor because something "may indicate" this or it "could be" that. That is not science, either. Most of you have admitted that there are flaws in the theory. I'm glad to hear that you admit that.

Flawed yes but not in the way you seem to have suggested we meant it. It is flawed in that their is no absolute proof, we dont have evry prokaryote eukaryote and multi celled organism in the chain. Their are gaps. But these do not disprove a theory

1 2 3 ? 5 6 7 8 9 10
In this sequence 4 is missing. Does it suggest the rest of the numbers are not advancing in sequence? Are we unable to determine what number holds its place? Does it stop us knowing 11 comes next?
evious postings that you still want addressed, let me know what they are.

Quote

I still haven't talked about genetic mutations. Does anyone still want to hear anything on that matter?

As we said before and now again. YES.
Again you posted a long post and seemed to hide the fact you had nothing much to say in a lot of words.

Quote

No, I do not think that adaptations are credible evidence for evolution, evidence of the flexibility of organisms and life, yes.

Expand

Quote

All the quotes you guys mention are interesting, and thought provoking, but are not supported by anything else than what someone else has "found" or "said" or interpreted. I don't automatically roll over and accept something as authority b/c it comes from sources just b/c you accept them. It is the same thing you accuse me of doing- quoting from something you don't esteem to be an acceptable source.

Dont accept our word than. Follow it to the source. See the expirement perform it yourself if you wish. We at least offer the chance of repeatable evidence

Quote

About being a Creationist... I am not a creationist I do not deny scientific explanation for the development of life.

Actually evolution is the scientifice explanation for the development of life

Quote

kay, unless I get distracted, my next post will address my observations and understanding of Macroevolution, and the question on whether Mutations can produce new species

Please do so.

[D Man]

Then talk about mutations. You've been asked several times. Do we need to put a gun to your head?

[Cause]

dough boy;128366 said:

I want to address statements made in response to my last post.

"Just b/c science can't prove a thing does not mean it's not right." This does not meet the same criteria you have been demanding I adhere to. It sounds hopeful, is all.

We offer supporting evidence you offer nothing. Please try to understand that the words theory and proof carry diffrent meanings than they do in common day usage. Newtonian physics as has been mentioned is false the theory falls apart under many conditions for instance. However for a grade 11 vector sum the theory holds true always. It is 100% but its not. Maybe their are other conditions, conditions we will never know which it falls apart under. Thats why the theory is never considered a proof. But a theory is far more than hopefull guesswork or belief. Its thousands of experiments, observable evidence, hypotheses that have stood all atempts to disprove them. For the conditions of a simple question of a plane moving north at 10km/h with a wind moving east at 5km/h the theory of newtonian physics is 100% true. But thats not good enough. Physicists will attack this problem until a unified theory is reached

Quote

"Actually the onus of proving claims falls on the claimant." That seems to be a cop out, b/c I am the one asking for the claim that evolution is fact. I am the one questioning, not claiming, at this point.

And we have met that request I feel. I refer specifically to a statment you made that if we did not believe what you said we must disprove it. Rather you should prove your statement first.

Quote

"Racemization is not science"? Please support that statement.

No one said this. I said that Occam's razor the idea you advanced that the simplest solution is often the right one is not science. The right solution is the right solution. The razor is not science, its just an idea which might help out sherlock holmes in his novels.

Quote

"Science never works on hearsay." ??????? Never? Okay, but does a belief in Science work on hearsay then?

No it does not. When you did your chem degree did they tell you things or did they make you do labs were you could witness things?

Quote

There was a statement that if there is a problem, it is "Peer Review" that fixes it. I need more than "peer review". As stated before, humans are fallible, and peer pressure is powerful.

Indeed it is. It nearly killed darwins idea before it could become accepted. But the proof overwon the pressure. As it must if the true scientific method is established.

Quote

It was stated that adaptations are "one small part of many that add up to equal evolution. Please provide the "many", in point form if possible.

Fossils
Vestigial organs
comparitive anatomy
Nucleic acid Sequence comparison
Conserved genetic material, proteins, amino acids
Uniform chirality of DNA, amino acid molecules
Horizobtal gene transfer
Observed micro evolution (Immune system, Viruses, bacteria)
Endosymbiotic theory (Mitocondria and chloroplasts are remarkably similiar to prokaryotes)
Junk DNA (Far from junk and very intresting, major work being done in this field as we speak)
Mathematical models of evolution

Quote

It seems that statistics are heavily relied on. May I be allowed to state that statistics are subject to interpretation, and are usually based on a small amount of data that may or may not be accurate or applicable? Even statistics can be manipulated.

So they can. Anyone caught doing so will have a poor reputation. Statistical laws are empirically observable to be true. The larger the sample size the smaller the error. Stats improves datas precision not its accuracy. But its an important and I will say unattackable tool of science

Quote

The statement was made that evolution "is flawed in that there is no absolute proof." It was also stated that the gaps in the offered data "don't disprove a theory." May I submit that, on the converse, the gaps also don't prove theories, either? Thats where you're lead to guesses, suppositions, etc? You may say that experiments and information is subject to peer review, but who are the peers reviewing it? Those that support evolution!

Do you know that the man who disproves evolution shall recieve the nobel prize in chemistry biochemistry and medicine . I assure no one will turn a blind eye
http://en.wikipedia..../Theory#Science

Stephen Jay Gould explained that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.... In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Quote

Basically, my understanding of evolution is this: The theory that life arose from inanimate chemicals, formed into self replicating cells, and slowly developed into more and more complex creatures. It also includes the series of changes, as by natural selection, mutation, etc, through which a given type of organism has acquired its present characteristics.

Before I get to talking about mutations, may I ask if you feel that it is correct that this is where the idea of micro/macro evolution comes in? I need to understand if we are on the same page about that before I start to explain my knowledge of it.

Seems fine. Though evolution is unconcerned with the orgin of life only its change.

Quote

I will ask a question, though- in regards to the debate about the supposed support of this topic through the observations made in regards to the bacteria/worm warfare that was mentioned, is it possible that those organisms were only behaving the way that they always have? (I won't say the way they were designed b/c I know you would take exception to that. I am trying to be respectful and sensitive to your requests for that, and so mean nothing sarcastic or derogatory in my question.)

They are doing what they alwasy have. But they are no longer what they were.

Quote

The mention of SARS struck me as odd, but perhaps I am missing something. Viruses do change, but they are still viruses. SARS was a virus, too! I am well aware of the SARS, I am Canadian after all! Please elaborate on how that supports the macroevolution subject???

That was me. I was simply laughing off the idea that we have not seen speciation. Their is observable empirical evidence. It may not be seen in a lab but the evidence is their.

For a virus to be considered a new species it only requires a diffrent genetic data of 15% this is easy to achieve for a virus.

Quote

If it's possible, I really would like to get to the mutation discussion.

We await your convenience

[D Man]

"You must spead some rep around before giving it to cause again"

[Illuyankas]

I have the same problem... Stop posting so much awesome! Actually, don't.

[Cause]

I canat give you rep iether. Its annoying

[The Rope]

I'm Baaaaack!!! to the eternal frustration and annoyance of those of the opinion i am an unscientific moron... (moron is my own word, and ftr, only i can call me a moron )

D Man;128369 said:

Then talk about mutations. You've been asked several times. Do we need to put a gun to your head?

You need to stop distracting DB. Let him/her speak about something new before asking more questions that need be addressed - or do you like ridiculously long posts? personally, i get tired of tping, and my eyes begin to burn.

@Chewy - i hadn't thought of that one... probably because im an uneducated moron. It does seem apparent, however in the attempt to be be "objective" i shall offer a possible solution to that problem (that i do not believe, i will add)

Grow an organ that will make life better - the organ does not start working right away, first the body begins to change the existing organs to match, then begins to wire the new organ into the other organs (this taking several generations, i might add), and after the entre infrastructural changes have been made, the organ kicks in. Of course, the generations living without actually using that organ lived short lives and had a very poor quality of life - but they managed to survive until the new organ was able to work. But now, the creature... sorry 'organism', creature implies 'created'... begins to live a longer life, the offspring are healthier and stronger, and evenually it becomes an integral part of the ecosystem once more!

I challenge the scientists to point out the flaws in my reasoning - prove for yourselves that it's dificult to challenge - unless of course you can both shoot my logic down AND provide a suitable and scientifically persuasive argument that chewy's point is null.

Also, there was some discussion earlier about Dough boy's list of scientists believing in creation - i believe the list was designed to support the argument that "not all scientists believe/accept evolution" - not as proven evidence of evolution's faults.

Before, however, anyone challenges anything else, let DB share the mutation thing... since you all want it so bad...

[Cause]

Chewy;128442 said:

Again I ask. Where is the evidence of DESCENT of one kind of animal into another? There was a post previously that admited that we will probably never find a finely graduated chain of changes from one type of living thing to another. I contend that it is a presumption of evidence that similarity in organisims indicates that they are descendant. The smoking gun, as it were, needs to be found.

The gun is on fire. Some people just pretend not to notice. If we dig up fossils evrywhere on the earth that are for animals millions of years old and yet have no fossils for humans or other modern animals before say 50 000 years this tell us something. Specifically their were once animals alive which are no longer nad humans are relatively knew to this world. This combined with other evidece leads to the Theory of Evolution.

Quote

Major biological functions could not change suddenly without damaging effects to the organism. The necessary infrastructure to support the extra feature has to be present before a bioligical function can operate. Our experience in medicine is that genetic changes are bad, not good.

Evolution means changes. Not good changes. Besides this whole paragraph is nonsense

Quote

Example: A car that goes from 1 cylinder to 2 cylinders has to now have 2 spark plugs, a distributor, a drive shaft and timing to distribute the power so that the cylinders do not work against each other, the engine compartment needs to be bigger, the exhaust outlet needs to be bigger, it can go on and on. It is not such a simple thing to introduce a new biological function.

This anology is pointless. Analogies are just that and in this case its a very poor one

Quote

It is assumed that what are called "vestigial organs" are developing organs that are not yet operational because they are not complete enough to perform their function, or a failed evolutionary attempt at a new organ. The most obvious is the appendix that was routinely removed because it was assumed to perform no useful function. Not so. It is now understood to play a roll in immunity and it is now prefered that we not remove this once called "vestigial organ" so that it can continue to perform its useful function. The fact is that an organ or function exists that appears to have no usefull purpose. Asserting that a biological mechanism is useless is an assumption based on the observer. "Examples" of vestigial organs in support of evolution are declining with the increase of factual studies in biology.

Good work you have reserached the creationist points. Allow me to educate you on the scientific ones. First off your definition of a vestigial organ is way off. Vestigial structures are anatomical which are considered to have lost much or all of their original function through evolution.

Lets compare the vestigial appendix to the heart. If my heart burst I would be dead, If a doctor removed my heart I would be dead. If an appendix bursts and is removed you might suffer minor effects. Further yes evidence seems to suggest (its still questioned, further research is being done) an appendix might play some minor role in immune defence. But its real purpose the one it should perform and the one it does in say cows is aids in the digestion of cellulose.

The human coccyx appears to be the left over remnants of a tail. I should mention as a fetus humans actually do have tails. It does serve now as the attachment points for some muscles and this is why it has not degraded further. But please dont compare some minor secondry function with its once primary

Wisdom teeth. They cause pain and discomfort in the majority of humans. Older human ancestors are shown to have once had larger jaws. Also their diet would suggest a greater need for crushing, grinding molars

Did you know whales have small hind legs. Not flippers. Small hind legs. Why does a whale need hind leg bones?

Flightless birds still have hollow brone structure. Without the need for reduced bone wieght this is pointless. Also why does an ostrich have wings?

Quote

That's all for now
Have fun with it

I believe I did I shall await your response

Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by D Man View Post
Then talk about mutations. You've been asked several times. Do we need to put a gun to your head?
You need to stop distracting DB. Let him/her speak about something new before asking more questions that need be addressed - or do you like ridiculously long posts? personally, i get tired of tping, and my eyes begin to burn.

We have not distracted him. He pouts points up we argue them. We await his promised proof. It is still forthcoming

Quote

I challenge the scientists to point out the flaws in my reasoning - prove for yourselves that it's dificult to challenge - unless of course you can both shoot my logic down AND provide a suitable and scientifically persuasive argument that chewy's point is null.

Please see above.

Quote

Also, there was some discussion earlier about Dough boy's list of scientists believing in creation - i believe the list was designed to support the argument that "not all scientists believe/accept evolution" - not as proven evidence of evolution's faults.

And we pointed out that science does not work in such a manner and if it did we win by a ratio of 10:1.

[D Man]

Chewy;128442 said:

Again I ask. Where is the evidence of DESCENT of one kind of animal into another? There was a post previously that admited that we will probably never find a finely graduated chain of changes from one type of living thing to another. I contend that it is a presumption of evidence that similarity in organisims indicates that they are descendant. The smoking gun, as it were, needs to be found.



Major biological functions could not change suddenly without damaging effects to the organism. The necessary infrastructure to support the extra feature has to be present before a bioligical function can operate. Our experience in medicine is that genetic changes are bad, not good.

Example: A car that goes from 1 cylinder to 2 cylinders has to now have 2 spark plugs, a distributor, a drive shaft and timing to distribute the power so that the cylinders do not work against each other, the engine compartment needs to be bigger, the exhaust outlet needs to be bigger, it can go on and on. It is not such a simple thing to introduce a new biological function.

It is assumed that what are called "vestigial organs" are developing organs that are not yet operational because they are not complete enough to perform their function, or a failed evolutionary attempt at a new organ. The most obvious is the appendix that was routinely removed because it was assumed to perform no useful function. Not so. It is now understood to play a roll in immunity and it is now prefered that we not remove this once called "vestigial organ" so that it can continue to perform its useful function. The fact is that an organ or function exists that appears to have no usefull purpose. Asserting that a biological mechanism is useless is an assumption based on the observer. "Examples" of vestigial organs in support of evolution are declining with the increase of factual studies in biology.

That's all for now
Have fun with it

Causes reply to this was excellent (still cant rep him!). I just have a couple of things to add

Proof of descent:
In the fossil record and modern life we see plenty of this, and what we see is in contradiction with the idea of a designer.
If I were a creationist type I'd just leave that there, but lets have a look at it!
We can trace all inherited characteristics down lines of ancestry and chart development. Its true of absolutely all biological phenomenon: for one life form to have it, its mum and dad had to. Hence we see snakes have venom (and also useless legs, like whales!) because the lizard they evolved from had poisonous saliva. Many other lizards, and the vast majority of other animals dont, because those mutations and consequent adaptations arent in their family tree (so to speak).

Now still thinking about this inheritance or characteristics lets have a look at something many things have: eyes.

Eyes evolved very early on (good article, saves me typing: http://en.wikipedia....tion_of_the_eye ).

Now we have backwards facing photoreceptive cells, a cornea and a lens
Dogs have the same structure but they have a relective membrane that shines light back onto the reversed photocells
Squid have forward facing photocells, a cornea and no lense.

Now the reason that there are distinctly different structures to the eye is that different lines of decsent from the same jumble of photocells had different mutations and adaptations, and they passed those on. The reason we dont have the releftive membrane or squid dont have lenses is that theres no significant evolutionary pressure for them. We're active in the day when lights perfectly good and squid live in the water where distance focusiing isnt that usefull.

But if they were designed by a single intelligence then the same result would be achieved in the same way. Once the creator has an idea he'd apply it to all of his creations. Backward facing retinas work, but forward facing retinas are better. lenses would give squid less benefit than us, but they would do better with them than without them. And so on. There are literally millions of characteristic that one animal has that another would benefit from that they dont have. Pandas would love a real thumb, for example. But they dont get them because some similar adaptation has to be made in that animlas ancestry.

But in design thats not the case. One person thinks of, say, TFT monitors (great imagination that: typing in what I'm looking at!) and before you know it every company has made their own version because they're intelligent and can see and transfer the devopment. Its not the case that LG, say, think of it and everyone else cant use it and keep trying to compete with CRTs. But thats the kind of thing we see in nature.

Basically: inherited characteristics cant jump across lines of descent, but a designer could apply all he knows to all he creates.

That is all.

Please continue.

[Cause]

Dammit and I really want the rep too. Theirs mods to compete with.

Nice post by the way