# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Evolution just doesn't make sense

## robert9712000

I never got a clear answer in how it all is supposed to work as far as how genetic mutations which supposedly lead to evolutionary changes over time is passed on,so heres my question posed from another thread





> The thing i never understood about the evolution theory is the general idea,that from what i understand  a animal has a mutation in its offspring and that mutation grouped with other mutations leads to great change over time.The problem i have is that from how i understand it , a mutation in a offspring has a 25% chance to pass that change on to its offspring.so say a mom and dad pig have 4 baby pigs and one has 5 legs which allows it to run faster.So he represents 25% of the population of offspring with a mutation.So now all 4 baby pigs have 4 babys but the mutant pig only has 1 baby pig with 5 legs .so now with 16 grand baby pigs only 1 has the mutation.Well be nice though and say he has 2 babys with 5 legs even though the odds of passing it on are only 25%.So out of 16 grand baby pigs 2 are mutants.That generation now only has 12.5% mutation rate.So how does a mutation ever become the dominate mutation if it only has a 25% chance to pass on the mutation?
> 
>     I know people will say it will become dominate because it has a advantage and thus survive better,but just because something can survive better doesnt mean it will over take the normal genes because the birthrate would still be the same of the normal pigs as the mutated ones which wouldn't allow the gene to become dominant.Also not every mutation would have a significant enough change to have any impact especially since you say all  major changes are a build up of minor changes.those changes then wouldnt be enough too cause any advantage to the mutant that would lead too its minority gene from becoming the dominant gene.
> 
>     Even if 50% offspring can be a carrier ,the normal ones are still having babies at the same rate.so its total percentage of the population could never increase.
> 
>     It just all appears statistically impossible for a minority mutant gene to always become the majority.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Well. This has the makings for an excellent discussion. And you address the question in a very good way. I'm just dissuaded with these discussions any more(here, at least). _But_ ...the pews are thinning and science class is filling by the day with young minds who question more so I'll take it.




Now, each one of these continents have species of animals on them. Continental drift has been a great scale in comparing evolving species (apart from each other through time) and how they have changed as the planet itself does the same. Of course, one could go on and on into other aspects but I have very little reassurance that the thread will remain on topic with the questions that you ask. Was a good scientific perspective. The second anything regarding science that threatens iron age fairy tales comes into discussion though we start seeing Bible verses posted which is essentially a hijack of the actual topic. Is just not worth it on a political board. Bottom line is that the pews are thinning and science class is filling by the day with young minds who wish to question things instead of just being told what to think _without_ question.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well. This has the makings for an excellent discussion. And you address the question in a very good way. I'm just dissuaded with these discussions any more(here, at least). _But_ ...the pews are thinning and science class is filling by the day with young minds who question more so I'll take it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, each one of these continents have species of animals on them. Continental drift has been a great scale in comparing evolving species (apart from each other through time) and how they have changed as the planet itself does the same. Of course, one could go on and on into other aspects but I have very little reassurance that the thread will remain on topic with the questions that you ask. Was a good scientific perspective. The second anything regarding science that threatens iron age fairy tales comes into discussion though we start seeing Bible verses posted which is essentially a hijack of the actual topic. Is just not worth it on a political board. Bottom line is that the pews are thinning and science class is filling by the day with young minds who wish to question things instead of just being told what to think _without_ question.


Pangea is somewhat controversial IIRC, as the continents don't fit as well as the animation would have you believe when we take into account continental shelves, etc.  Haven't taken geology in many moons, though.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Pangea is somewhat controversial IIRC, as the continents don't fit as well as the animation would have you believe when we take into account continental shelves, etc.  Haven't taken geology in many moons, though.


Yes, I know. One of the toughest things for me has been looking at it once we get back to some of the ancient maps. Once we spend all of that time wading through cuneiform you start to see that even that is premised upon how they envisioned the mythological world.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, I know. One of the toughest things for me has been looking at it once we get back to some of the ancient maps. Once we spend all of that time wading through cuneiform you start to see that even that is premised upon how they envisioned the mythological world.


Indeed.   It seems figuring out what a "proto-world" language was like is easier than retracing maps all the way back to the beginning of earth.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> I never got a clear answer in how it all is supposed to work as far as how genetic mutations which supposedly lead to evolutionary changes over time is passed on,so heres my question posed from another thread


Survivability means that when the annual die-off occurs, the less survivable don't just get hand-me-downs.  They die.

Have you ever noticed that Raccoons have 3-5 kits in a litter, yet the total number of raccoons doesn't increase 300-500% every year?  That's because 1/3 to 2/3rds of every raccoon born, don't live to see their first birthday.

In a world of limited resources, survivability is life or death.  If only one offspring of a 4 offspring litter survives to reproduce, even though a positive mutation is only 1/4 of the total born, but only one will live, so 100% of the surviving offspring will have the mutation.

----------


## VIDEODROME

I knew it. Raccoons are mutants.

----------


## Smart3

Our loss of tails is a good way to understand Evolution. Do some research on the subject and you'll probably understand it more.

----------


## robert9712000

> Survivability means that when the annual die-off occurs, the less survivable don't just get hand-me-downs.  They die.
> 
> Have you ever noticed that Raccoons have 3-5 kits in a litter, yet the total number of raccoons doesn't increase 300-500% every year?  That's because 1/3 to 2/3rds of every raccoon born, don't live to see their first birthday.
> 
> In a world of limited resources, survivability is life or death.  If only one offspring of a 4 offspring litter survives to reproduce, even though a positive mutation is only 1/4 of the total born, but only one will live, so 100% of the surviving offspring will have the mutation.


But if the change is a series of very small ones,how can a minor change really help survivability to be much of an advantage compared to the other offspring? also,why would the unchanged animal be able to survive long enough to pass on its genes prior too its mutated offspring but all of the sudden when one offspring is different the others now have issues with being able to survive long enough to pass on its genes to another generation?

----------


## brandon

> Even if 50% offspring can be a carrier ,the normal ones are still having babies at the same rate.so its total percentage of the population could never increase.


I think the theory is that they aren't reproducing at the same rate.  The mutation increases their survival rate so they reproduce more frequently than those without the mutation, and they are more likely to pass on the gene than their parents were.  I'm pretty sure this process has been empirically validated in petri dishes etc.

----------


## Danan

> But if the change is a series of very small ones,how can a minor change really help survivability as much of a advantage compared to the other offspring?


Minor changes will have minor effects, not no effects. Minor genetic advances will increase the chance of reproduction very slightly. Even if it's barely noticeable, in the long run it might become visible.

Let's say one out ten offspring of some kind of herbivore has a very slightly different camouflage pattern that makes it barely less likely to be eaten before it can reproduce. You might argue that this change is so small that it couldn't possibly make any impact on future generations. But there are more families of this species than just the one. And with every one of them the same thing applies. The offspring with the best patterns are more likely to reach reproductive age than its siblings (that's even true by definition, since a "good" pattern would be one that allows exactly this). Over time, better pattern become the norm.

It's also noticeable that only changes that actually increase the likelyhood of reproduction at the time they occur are relevant for evolutionary processes. There is no "purpose" or goal in evolution. So if wings emerge, for example, that is because it for some reason was advantageous even before the animal was able to fly with them (for instance for balance purposes in the case of raptors jumping their prey and clawing into their backs).

Not all evolutionary changes have to be good for the survival of the animal, though. Only for its likelyhood to reproduce. Some genetic changes may be a handicap when it comes to survival but still be dominant because the other gender for some reason prefers it (although over very long time it make sense to assume that species where sexual preferences are a big disadvantage for survival are not very likely to succeed).

----------


## jkr

_wood peckers_
a shock absorber built into its neck so it can get its food!


"evolve" that!

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> But if the change is a series of very small ones,how can a minor change really help survivability to be much of an advantage compared to the other offspring? also,why would the unchanged animal be able to survive long enough to pass on its genes prior too its mutated offspring but all of the sudden when one offspring is different the others now have issues with being able to survive long enough to pass on its genes to another generation?


Ever see a cat with 5 toes?  That is a genetic mutation.  Does it give competitive advantage to a cat?  Maybe not which is why it's still pretty rare except among certain people who actively breed for that trait.

At some time in the prehistoric past, No Mustelids had opposable thumbs.  One does now.  Raccoons.  That minor mutation made a huge difference in survivability because the new animal could now grasp food items like frogs much easier.  Any of it's siblings without the opposable thumb is not competing against his sibling for food.  The one with the opposable thumb gets all the frogs, most of the berries, and other food items and getting fat and happy, while it's siblings do alright in the summer with ready availability of berries and fruits but because their sibling has depleted a critical fat building resource, when winter sets in, the one with the mutation is the only one with the fat reserves to make it through.  The rest starve, and do not pass on their genes.  That one survivor gets to pass on the trait to its offspring.  Even if its mate from a litter without the mutation does not have the trait, all their offspring will be carriers, and the chance that multiple grandchildren from sibling matings and great grandchildren from cousin matings will have it are super high because of the high fertility rate of the fat opposable thumbed raccoon.

----------


## otherone

> At some time in the prehistoric past, No Mustelids had opposable thumbs.  One does now.  Raccoons.


Raccoons are procyonids, not mustelids.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I think the conversation could start from the first male/female interaction and how it possibly survived.  The male mutation would have to find a female mutation or one that could accept a male intrusion.

Minor mutations does not demonstrate how evolution from a single cell can eventually result in a human.

_perhaps the first male organ was like a spear and the other could heal from the intrusion?  nightmare. And that would require a lot of mutations at once, desire, etc..._

----------


## BetterCallSaul

I think that imagination/projection-of-will is the X-factor.  As DNA is a miniscule and fragile string of information, it being in an information-transmission wavelength immersion will affect its expression.  My hunch anyway.

----------


## Kotin

> I think that imagination/projection-of-will is the X-factor.  As DNA is a miniscule and fragile string of information, it being in an information-transmission wavelength immersion will affect its expression.  My hunch anyway.


I have always thought that consciousness is the input.. none of these processes would occur in an orderly and managed fashion without the input and direction of the will of consciousness.. what consciousness is I do not know.. but it is the driving force of everything biological.

----------


## otherone

> .. what consciousness is I do not know.. but it is the driving force of everything biological.


I like the Chaos Theory.

----------


## Theocrat

> I never got a clear answer in how it all is supposed to work as far as how genetic mutations which supposedly lead to evolutionary changes over time is passed on,so heres my question posed from another thread


Mutations occur in living organisms, but they are simply the reorganization of *preexisting information* within the gene pool of living organisms. Mutations do not add brand new information to organisms. That would be similar to some of the evolutionary postulations in the "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis, if one believes that new information just appears ("jumps") into the genetic apparatus of living organisms. The fact is no known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.

Evolutionists believe that natural selection produces new genes, but that is false. It only "selects" among preexisting characteristics. As the word "selection" implies, variations are reduced, not increased (as you've mentioned in your question).

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> Raccoons are procyonids, not mustelids.


That is new.  When I graduated University in Wildlife Biology, they were classified as in the Mustelid family, and there was no Procyonid family, as they share so many characteristics with the Weasel family, including dentition, scent, etc..  The difference is the opposable thumb, and really the only reason to place them separately.  The Procyonid family itself is odd in that it lumps together a bunch of animals that don't seem to share much actual phenotypical traits.   A Separate Genus, they've had all along.  This separate family is a new thing, and in my opinion, not wrong.  I see that they have also created a new "SUPERFAMILY" called Musteliodae which includes both Mustelids and Procyonids.  In any case, my earlier post is still applicable even if Raccoons are classified with Coatis and Lesser Pandas, which still don't have Opposable thumbs.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Raccoons are procyonids, not mustelids.


Well, whaddaya know? One of these evolution threads has finally resullted in my learning something neat & interesting.

Noting the similarity between "procyonids" and the name of the star "Procyon" I did a quick search & found this:

FTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procyon...l_significance



> [Procyon's] name comes from the Greek _προκύον_ (_prokyon_), meaning "before the dog", since it precedes the "Dog Star" Sirius as it travels across the sky due to Earth's rotation. (Although Procyon has a greater right ascension, it also has a more northerly declination, which means it will rise above the horizon earlier than Sirius from most northerly latitudes.) In Greek mythology, Procyon is associated with Maera, a hound belonging to Erigone, daughter of Icarius of Athens.
> 
> These two dog stars are referred to in the most ancient literature and were venerated by the Babylonians and the Egyptians: in Babylonian mythology Procyon was known as Nangar the Carpenter, an aspect of Marduk, involved in constructing and organising the celestial sky.
> 
> The constellations in Macedonian folklore represented agricultural  items and animals, reflecting their village way of life. To them,  Procyon and Sirius were _Volci_ "the wolves", circling hungrily around Orion which depicted a plough with oxen.
> 
> Rarer names are the Latin translation of Procyon, _Antecanis,_ and the Arabic-derived names _Al Shira_ and _Elgomaisa._ Medieval astrolabes of England and Western Europe used a variant of this, _Algomeiza/Algomeyza_. _Al Shira_ derives from الشعرى الشامية _a-ira a-amiyah_,  "the Syrian sign" (the other sign being Sirius; "Syria" is supposedly a  reference to its northern location relative to Sirius); _Elgomaisa.' derives from الغميصاء_ al-ghumaisa _"the bleary-eyed (woman)", in contrast to العبور "the teary-eyed (woman)", which is Sirius. (See Gomeisa.) The modern Arabic name for Procyon is غموص_ ghumūṣ. _It is known as 南河三 (Mandarin_ nánhésān, _the Third Star in the Southern River) in Chinese._
> 
> The Hawaiians saw Procyon as part of an asterism _Ke ka o Makali'i_ ("The canoe bailer of Makali'i") that helped them navigate at sea. Called _Puana_ "blossom", it formed this asterism with Capella, Sirius, Castor and Pollux. In Tahitian lore, Procyon was one of the pillars propping up the sky, known as _Anâ-tahu'a-vahine-o-toa-te-manava_ ("star-the-priestess-of-brave-heart"), the pillar for elocution. The Maori knew the star as _Puangahori_. Procyon appears on the flag of Brazil, symbolising the state of Amazonas.
> ...

----------


## oyarde

> That is new.  When I graduated University in Wildlife Biology, they were classified as in the Mustelid family, and there was no Procyonid family, as they share so many characteristics with the Weasel family, including dentition, scent, etc..  The difference is the opposable thumb, and really the only reason to place them separately.  The Procyonid family itself is odd in that it lumps together a bunch of animals that don't seem to share much actual phenotypical traits.   A Separate Genus, they've had all along.  This separate family is a new thing, and in my opinion, not wrong.  I see that they have also created a new "SUPERFAMILY" called Musteliodae which includes both Mustelids and Procyonids.  In any case, my earlier post is still applicable even if Raccoons are classified with Coatis and Lesser Pandas, which still don't have Opposable thumbs.


I never could quite picture a red panda as a raccoon .

----------


## oyarde

> _wood peckers_
> a shock absorber built into its neck so it can get its food!
> 
> 
> "evolve" that!


The marine iguana is a perfect example.

----------


## Theocrat

> The marine iguana is a perfect example.


The marine iguana is a perfect example of what?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I think the conversation could start from the first male/female interaction and how it possibly survived.  The male mutation would have to find a female mutation or one that could accept a male intrusion.
> 
> Minor mutations does not demonstrate how evolution from a single cell can eventually result in a human.
> 
> _perhaps the first male organ was like a spear and the other could heal from the intrusion?  nightmare. And that would require a lot of mutations at once, desire, etc..._


Any takers?

----------


## oyarde

> The marine iguana is a perfect example of what?


Adaptive change.I am sure there would be such in woodpeckers too, the feet would be the first thing that comes to mind.

----------


## austin944

> Even if 50% offspring can be a carrier ,the normal ones are still having babies at the same rate.so its total percentage of the population could never increase.
> 
> It just all appears statistically impossible for a minority mutant gene to always become the majority.


Female pigs have multiple litters over their lifetime.  The less fit pigs would generally not survive as long as the fitter pigs (being eaten by predators, etc.), so the fitter pigs would have more litters, and hence produce more piglets over their lifetime than those pigs without the mutation.

Also a fitter pig would not likely have a mutation such as a 5th leg; it would probably be something less drastic like slightly longer legs that would help them escape predators in the wild.  (I assume we're talking about wild pigs here).

Doesn't this thread belong in the Science forum?

----------


## Theocrat

> Adaptive change.I am sure there would be such in woodpeckers too, the feet would be the first thing that comes to mind.




From an evolutionist's perspective, I'd like for you to answer three questions:
*How many millions of years would it have taken for woodpeckers to evolve a structure like a shock absorber?**Where is the empirical evidence for the evolution of such an intricate and necessary structure in the woodpecker?**Why would nature (via natural selection) "find it necessary" for woodpeckers to evolve shock absorbers, if the first woodpeckers didn't already have them (codified in their DNA)?*

----------


## jkr

cool huh?

----------


## Theocrat

> cool huh?


We're about to observe is how much faith evolutionists have in the theory of evolution, thanks to woodpecker anatomy...

----------


## otherone

> Any takers?


Bedbugs are a pernicious pest....the males sexual organ penetrates the females exoskeleton randomly....  They literally eff her to death...she has to get away to a remote area to survive, thus laying her eggs in unusual places...like audio speakers far from the bedroom....

----------


## otherone

> We're about to observe is how much faith evolutionists have in the theory of evolution, thanks to woodpecker anatomy...


Yes....who needs the bible?  We have woodpeckers....

----------


## Danan

> We're about to observe is how much faith evolutionists have in the theory of evolution, thanks to woodpecker anatomy...


Of course the woodpecker anatomy changes everything! I now believe we all descend from two people living 6000 years ago. Thanks, brother!

----------


## Theocrat

> Yes....who needs the bible?  We have woodpeckers....





> Of course the woodpecker anatomy changes everything! I now believe we all descend from two people living 6000 years ago. Thanks, brother!


Assuming that you two were being sarcastic, are you able to meet my challenge by answering the three questions I've asked in Post #28?

----------


## otherone

> Of course the woodpecker anatomy changes everything! I now believe we all descend from two people living 6000 years ago. Thanks, brother!


The important thing to take away from this is:
What ever we don't understand is directly attributed to God!  IT'S A MIRACLE!!!!!!

----------


## James Madison

> From an evolutionist's perspective, I'd like for you to answer three questions:
> *How many millions of years would it have taken for woodpeckers to evolve a structure like a shock absorber?**Where is the empirical evidence for the evolution of such an intricate and necessary structure in the woodpecker?**Why would nature (via natural selection) "find it necessary" for woodpeckers to evolve shock absorbers, if the first woodpeckers didn't already have them (codified in their DNA)?*


1. It could take 50,000 years; it could take 50,000,000 years. Who cares? It exists.
2. The empirical evidence is the woodpecker. It exists and since creationism is simply wrong that leaves only one other option.
3. Trees are a good source of resources and woodpeckers have exclusive access to previously unavailable nutrients. There's also the issue of co-evolution, where trees develop thicker and thicker bark in response to woodpeckers becoming more and more adept at drilling. An arms race would ensue.

----------


## Danan

> Assuming that you two were being sarcastic, are you able to meet my challenge by answering the three questions I've asked in Post #28?


So because I'm not an evolutionary biologist, specialized into woodpeckers, and can't answer your very specific questions that means that evolution can't be correct or that assuming it is the best explanation for the origin of species is irrational?

I can't tell you how exactly a graviton works. Does that mean that the believe in gravitational forces is irrational and we should rather believe that God's will forces massive objects to attract each other?

You seem to assume that there is anything about the woodpecker anatomy that couldn't possibly emerge out of an evolutionary process. I don't understand why you believe that. There seems nothing wrong with assuming that a bird more fit to peck wholes into a tree would have a biological advantage and that thus the woodpecker anatomy emerges over long periods of time. Also, woodpeckers are hardly the most amazing creatures out there, so the whole argument seems rather odd.

----------


## matt0611

> The important thing to take away from this is:
> What ever we don't understand is directly attributed to God!  IT'S A MIRACLE!!!!!!


Except creation isn't some after-the-fact ad-hoc fill in the holes type of argument, the Bible states in the beginning that God created the animals. 

Whatever we don't know or explain evolutionists or naturalists will just fill it in with "science will explain it one day maybe!", "evolution!", etc etc

"we've never ever observed life coming from non-life, but it must have happened somehow! because creation just couldn't be true!"

----------


## juleswin

I think the fact that all your sibling are not identical clones. Some may have weird allergies, sicknesses or strengths that other do not have is evidence for genetic diversity which sorta explains micro evolution. Now keep that micro evolution going for say 1m years and you have macro evolution. Its just that simple

----------


## robert9712000

> Female pigs have multiple litters over their lifetime.  The less fit pigs would generally not survive as long as the fitter pigs (being eaten by predators, etc.), so the fitter pigs would have more litters, and hence produce more piglets over their lifetime than those pigs without the mutation.
> 
> Also a fitter pig would not likely have a mutation such as a 5th leg; it would probably be something less drastic like slightly longer legs that would help them escape predators in the wild.  (I assume we're talking about wild pigs here).
> 
> Doesn't this thread belong in the Science forum?


i thought religion was a perfect area for a thread on questioning evolution,since it is a faith based belief 

Anyways enough antagonizing .Going by your logic then, that survival of the fittest leads to continual adaption, which eventually leads to change.Would it then not be logical that areas with alot of predators have a more diverse ecology because of more adaptions,since  adaption requires the preexisting species to die off before being able to pass on its genetic information(aka the presence of a predator) so that the mutation can reproduce at a faster rate in order for the mutated offspring to eventually become the standard model.

 At first thought you would say well look at rain forest,there very diverse because there are many predators which force adaption to happen if you want to survive.

So since a change requires better survivability in order for its offspring to out pace the standard species one would then assume areas with no natural predators would not be very diverse since the environment doesnt demand as much need for survivability to pass on its genetic information.So my questions based on these ideas would be as follow.
*
1. With no natural predators,why are the Galapagos Islands such a diverse ecosystem?*
2. Not all species have multiple litters.*So would not species that have 1 litter and no natural predators survive long enough to pass on there genetic information too the next generation,thus preventing the mutated offspring from ever out pacing the main species to become the new standard species?
3. If there was no threat to a species and it always survived long enough to produce offspring would that prevent evolution from occurring?*

----------


## austin944

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wood...oodpecker.html




> Many other interesting adaptations are seen in different species of woodpeckers. Some species, for example, have modified joints between certain bones in the skull and upper jaw, as well as muscles which contract to absorb the shock of the hammering. Strong neck and tail-feather muscles, and a chisel-like bill are other hammering adaptations which are seen in some species. The same creationist sources which present inaccurate information about the tongue often claim that the sheer number of adaptations found in woodpeckers provide an argument against evolution. They state that all of these adaptations would have to have came about "at the same time," or they would all have been useless. Of course, such an argument ignores the fact that many species of woodpeckers alive today lack these adaptations, or possess them in a reduced form.
> 
> The flicker, for instance, uses its long tongue primarily to grab prey from the ground or from under loose bark. It has few shock-absorbing adaptations, and prefers to feed on the ground or to chip away at rotting wood and bark, habits observed in birds outside of the woodpecker family (7). *A "continuum" in skull structures, from little- to highly-specialized for pounding is seen in different genera (groups of related species) of woodpeckers alive today.(8)*

----------


## Theocrat

> 1. It could take 50,000 years; it could take 50,000,000 years. Who cares? It exists.
> 2. The empirical evidence is the woodpecker. It exists and since creationism is simply wrong that leaves only one other option.
> 3. Trees are a good source of resources and woodpeckers have exclusive access to previously unavailable nutrients. There's also the issue of co-evolution, where trees develop thicker and thicker bark in response to woodpeckers becoming more and more adept at drilling. An arms race would ensue.


1. Who cares? Lots of people care (like myself) because we've been told that the theory of evolution is true, for it has been proven within the natural sciences that it takes millions of years for living organisms to evolve. Dating methods have been produced to show how living things, supposedly, are millions of years old, in stark contrast to a creationist postulation of thousands of years. That's why it matters. To say that "it could take 50,000 years or 50,000,000 years; who cares," is not a scientific approach to the subject at all.

2. That is not empirical evidence that shock absorbers evolved within woodpeckers. All we ever observe in woodpeckers today is that they have shock absorbers, intricately built into their anatomy. There is no reason to believe that their shock absorbers evolved because we do not observe such a phenomenon in nature. But if such a phenomenon were to occur, then the empirical evidence of it would be easy to demonstrate. If anything, the sheer design and teleology of the woodpecker's head is clear evidence that it was created because the contrary is simply never seen in nature. So your second answer is not valid at all because it shows no empirical evidence of evolution. It is just speculation, reflective of your precommitment to evolution.

3. You would have to show how woodpeckers, prior to having shock absorbers, would "know" that the nutrients in the trees where they hunt for food are useful in their bodies to grow a shock absorber, in the first place. Once again, we would have to deal with my second question about empirical evidence for showing how "pre-shock-absorber" woodpeckers could use trees that gave them the ability to evolve shock absorbers. So, then, where do we find such woodpeckers in nature today?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 1. Who cares? Lots of people care (like myself) because we've been told that the theory of evolution is true, for it has been proven within the natural sciences that it takes millions of years for living organisms to evolve. Dating methods have been produced to show how living things, supposedly, are millions of years old, in stark contrast to a creationist postulation of thousands of years. That's why it matters. To say that "it could take 50,000 years or 50,000,000 years; who cares," is not a scientific approach to the subject at all.
> 
> 2. That is not empirical evidence that shock absorbers evolved within woodpeckers. All we ever observe in woodpeckers today is that they have shock absorbers, intricately built into their anatomy. There is no reason to believe that their shock absorbers evolved because we do not observe such a phenomenon in nature. But if such a phenomenon were to occur, then the empirical evidence of it would be easy to demonstrate. If anything, the sheer design and teleology of the woodpecker's head is clear evidence that it was created because the contrary is simply never seen in nature. So your second answer is not valid at all because it shows no empirical evidence of evolution. It is just speculation, reflective of your precommitment to evolution.
> 
> 3. You would have to show how woodpeckers, prior to having shock absorbers, would "know" that the nutrients in the trees where they hunt for food are useful in their bodies to grow a shock absorber, in the first place. Once again, we would have to deal with my second question about empirical evidence for showing how "pre-shock-absorber" woodpeckers could use trees that gave them the ability to evolve shock absorbers. So, then, where do we find such woodpeckers in nature today?


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Theocrat again.*   How dare you bring logic and science into an RPF debate about science?

----------


## austin944

> Going by your logic then, that survival of the fittest leads to continual adaption, which eventually leads to change.Would it then not be logical that areas with alot of predators have a more diverse ecology because of more adaptions,


Not necessarily -- you could have two species locked in an "arms race" that each evolve in response to the changes in the other species.  It would not necessarily lead to a multitude of species evolving from one or both of the species.  Like for example, the cheetah and the gazelle might adapt to evolutionary changes in the other, without having the cheetah split off into separate sub-species that both hunt the gazelle.

There are far more factors that determine evolution besides predation.  I was just using your pig example to show why mutation can lead to evolutionary changes in a species.  You can also have changes due to:
1) Competition between different species for a limited food source
2) Changes in the environment that cause one species to die out, or be replaced by another
3) Adaptations within a species for finding new/different food sources within an environment
4) Disease

There are too many factors involved that prevent an easy explanation or prediction of the course of evolution.

----------


## Theocrat

> So because I'm not an evolutionary biologist, specialized into woodpeckers, and can't answer your very specific questions that means that evolution can't be correct or that assuming it is the best explanation for the origin of species is irrational?
> 
> I can't tell you how exactly a graviton works. Does that mean that the believe in gravitational forces is irrational and we should rather believe that God's will forces massive objects to attract each other?
> 
> You seem to assume that there is anything about the woodpecker anatomy that couldn't possibly emerge out of an evolutionary process. I don't understand why you believe that. There seems nothing wrong with assuming that a bird more fit to peck wholes into a tree would have a biological advantage and that thus the woodpecker anatomy emerges over long periods of time. Also, woodpeckers are hardly the most amazing creatures out there, so the whole argument seems rather odd.

----------


## Danan

> *You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Theocrat again.*   How dare you bring logic and science into an RPF debate about science?


I can't believe that you +rep this infantile defiance of logic and reason full of fallacies.

----------


## Danan

> 


Or you would simply read what austin944 had to say. But I doubt you'd understand it.

----------


## oyarde

I kind of like this thing, a Texacephale langstoni , genus of pachycephlosaur.

----------


## Kotin

> 


All this means is that we haven't discovered an explanation.. That's all.

----------


## juleswin

There is a very good youtube channel I love to post in discussion of evolution like this. The video doesnt talk about woodpeckers but it talks about cat evolution. It is not very technical and some of the evidence presented can be verified from a visit to the local natural museum. Anyway, here it is and please watch with an open mind. It is not just educational but entertaining even for those who already believe in evolution.

----------


## James Madison

> 1. Who cares? Lots of people care (like myself) because we've been told that the theory of evolution is true, for it has been proven within the natural sciences that it takes millions of years for living organisms to evolve. Dating methods have been produced to show how living things, supposedly, are millions of years old, in stark contrast to a creationist postulation of thousands of years. That's why it matters. To say that "it could take 50,000 years or 50,000,000 years; who cares," is not a scientific approach to the subject at all.


The entire premise, "it has been proven within the natural sciences that it takes millions of years for living organisms to evolve", is fundamentally wrong at every level. I'm not even sure how to respond (it's that ridiculous). 

Your response is an exercise in begging the question, with logic as sturdy as construction paper. Creationists claim the earth is thousands of years old? Who cares? It's not. Even if carbon dating is imperfect, numbers coming out of geology, astrophysics, cosmology, et al. indicate the same approximate age of the universe. Things like mountain formation, the mass and expansion rate of the universe, the moon...the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across and the galactic core is 50,000 light years away. If the creationists are right, how can I see Milky Way Galaxy? Why isn't the most distant object in the observable universe 6,000 light years away?

I could go on, and the more and more questions I posit, all you can say in defense is 'woodpeckers'? Woodpeckers overturn every other line of evidence pointing towards a very old universe? Are you even trying, Theo?





> 2. That is not empirical evidence that shock absorbers evolved within woodpeckers. All we ever observe in woodpeckers today is that they have shock absorbers, intricately built into their anatomy. There is no reason to believe that their shock absorbers evolved because we do not observe such a phenomenon in nature. But if such a phenomenon were to occur, then the empirical evidence of it would be easy to demonstrate. If anything, the sheer design and teleology of the woodpecker's head is clear evidence that it was created because the contrary is simply never seen in nature. So your second answer is not valid at all because it shows no empirical evidence of evolution. It is just speculation, reflective of your precommitment to evolution.


Incorrect. Genomic sequencing indicates a species of bird, _Nesoctites micromegas_, or the 'Antillean Piculet', is sister to all modern woodpeckers. Notice how it lightly pecks in order to reveal ants, beetles, and termites hiding in the tree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antillean_Piculet 

It isn't difficult to imagine newer species becoming more and more adept at drilling holes as they would be selected for. Ones with the strongest head muscles survive, creating a postive feedback loop. Fastforward to right now, and there you are.




> 3. You would have to show how woodpeckers, prior to having shock absorbers, would "know" that the nutrients in the trees where they hunt for food are useful in their bodies to grow a shock absorber, in the first place. Once again, we would have to deal with my second question about empirical evidence for showing how "pre-shock-absorber" woodpeckers could use trees that gave them the ability to evolve shock absorbers. So, then, where do we find such woodpeckers in nature today?


Early woodpeckers might have observed ants crawling into the outer bark of trees and began poking around. Some died, but the ones who survived were at an advantage when it came time to choose mates and they likely enjoyed higher reproductive suc cess. Wrynecks and piculets are a good example of modern proto-woodpeckers. They lack the strong neck and head muscles required for drilling but make small holes where various insects can be foraged. Those are alive today...an internet search that took 15 seconds.

Sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You demand empirical evidence and are willing to dismiss evolution without absolute laboratory proof. Do you dismiss God? What empirical proof exists to verify the existence of God?

Science isn't about finding universal truths, it's about gathering evidence. You find evidence and then you infer from said evidence the most likely explaination based on the existing body of knowledge. Evolution agrees with our existing body of knowledge; Creationism does not. Now, if you could show something like humans and dinosaurs coexisting or mountains being formed in a week that would certainly turn a few heads. Write it up, submit it for publication, and collect your Nobel Prize. Unless you don't _have_ any evidence...

----------


## Theocrat

> All this means is that we haven't discovered an explanation.. That's all.


When evolutionists say things like "we haven't discovered an explanation yet," that's their problem. Evolutionists fail to see that they live by faith.

----------


## austin944

> Once again, we would have to deal with my second question about empirical evidence for showing how "pre-shock-absorber" woodpeckers could use trees that gave them the ability to evolve shock absorbers. So, then, where do we find such woodpeckers in nature today?


The answer is provided in the talk.origins quote I posted above.  There is a range of shock-absorbing capabilities in today's woodpecker's.  The Flicker is mentioned as a woodpecker which has little shock-absorbing capacity that hunts for insects in rotted wood.

One can easily imagine a common ancestor of today's woodpeckers finding insects in easily-reached locations, and then evolving into separate species, each with gradual changes to their ability to find insects in harder to reach places.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I can't believe that you +rep this infantile defiance of logic and reason full of fallacies.


I'm quite familiar with logic (formal and informal).  Whatever you think of his position, his argument (and counter-arguments) is the sounder one presented. (Did you know the Scientific Method itself is fallacious?  See "asserting the consequent" in your textbook.  Usually found under "Inductive Reasoning" or something similar.  Formally expressed as "A, therefore B")

----------


## matt0611

> You demand empirical evidence and are willing to dismiss evolution without absolute laboratory proof. Do you dismiss God? What empirical proof exists to verify the existence of God?


Thank you, finally....yes, that's right. there is no laboratory proof because its never ever been observed to happen. The evolutionary worldview is a faith-based worldview, ultimately.

I don't demand laboratory proof of the big bang or evolution, because I know there isn't any, and I say the same about God and creation. I can't provide scientific proof for that either.

----------


## Theocrat

> The entire premise, "it has been proven within the natural sciences that it takes millions of years for living organisms to evolve", is fundamentally wrong at every level. I'm not even sure how to respond (it's that ridiculous). 
> 
> Your response is an exercise in begging the question, with logic as sturdy as construction paper. Creationists claim the earth is thousands of years old? Who cares? It's not. Even if carbon dating is imperfect, numbers coming out of geology, astrophysics, cosmology, et al. indicate the same approximate age of the universe. Things like mountain formation, the mass and expansion rate of the universe, the moon...the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across and the galactic core is 50,000 light years away. If the creationists are right, how can I see Milky Way Galaxy? Why isn't the most distant object in the observable universe 6,000 light years away?
> 
> I could go on, and the more and more questions I posit, all you can say in defense is 'woodpeckers'? Woodpeckers overturn every other line of evidence pointing towards a very old universe? Are you even trying, Theo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Once again, you're not answering my questions, James. Inferences are not the same as evidences. I'm asking for verifiable evidence that can be observed in nature and tested in a laboratory for the evolution of a structure such as the shock absorber in a woodpecker. The scientific method begins with observations, after all. You have not done that. You've presented a bunch of things which show variations amongst birds, but nothing more. Creationists can explain how those variations come about. But that's not the issue.

Once again, *where do we observe in nature woodpeckers without shock absorbers*? And, *where do we observe those kinds of woodpeckers evolving shock absorbers to adapt to their environment*? If you can't answer my questions, then just admit that you don't know. But when you use phrases like "it isn't hard to imagine" or "might have," then you are not making scientific statements; you are making philosophical/religious statements, primed by faith in a process that has not proven the very thing in which I've asked.

----------


## Theocrat

> The answer is provided in the talk.origins quote I posted above.  There is a range of shock-absorbing capabilities in today's woodpecker's.  The Flicker is mentioned as a woodpecker which has little shock-absorbing capacity that hunts for insects in rotted wood.
> 
> One can easily imagine a common ancestor of today's woodpeckers finding insects in easily-reached locations, and then evolving into separate species, each with gradual changes to their ability to find insects in harder to reach places.


The woodpecker you mentioned still has a shock absorber. That's not proof that it evolved one. I'm asking for empirical evidence that the shock absorber evolved over millions of years. I'm also asking for you to show me woodpeckers in nature without shock absorbers in their anatomy. All we ever observe in nature are woodpeckers with shock absorbers, so I don't even see why we have to assume that such a structure evolved at all. There is no evidence to show that. "Easily imagining" that it could happen is *not* scientific.

----------


## oyarde

I have never spent alot of time delling on it , but it all makes sense to me.You have a creation  and then things change a bit over time . Seems natural to me .

----------


## James Madison

> Once again, *where do we observe in nature woodpeckers without shock absorbers*? And, *where do we observe those kinds of woodpeckers evolving shock absorbers to adapt to their environment*? If you can't answer my questions, then just admit that you don't know. But when you use phrases like "it isn't hard to imagine" or "might have," then you are not making scientific statements; you are making philosophical/religious statements, primed by faith in a process that has not proven the very thing in which I've asked.


No, scientific statements are built on evidence, hypotheses, and theories. Philosophical and religious statements are built on blind faith and opinions. We know evolution is true in the same way we know dark matter exists. 

I've already offered you the challenge: produce the evidence that falsifies evolution, get it published, and collect your Nobel Prize (and $1,000,000 cash). I want half since it was my idea.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No, scientific statements are built on evidence, hypotheses, and theories. Philosophical and religious statements are built on blind faith and opinions. *We know evolution is true in the same way we know dark matter exists. 
> *
> I've already offered you the challenge: produce the evidence that falsifies evolution, get it published, and collect your Nobel Prize (and $1,000,000 cash). I want half since it was my idea.


Not really.  Dark matter is observable, measurable, falsifiable, etc.  Evolution is not.  Since you are the one making the positive claim, is not the burden of proof on you?  Why do others have to disprove it?  What would it take to convince you that the theory is sufficiently falsified?

----------


## James Madison

> Not really.  Dark matter is observable, measurable, falsifiable, etc.  Evolution is not.  Since you are the one making the positive claim, is not the burden of proof on you?  Why do others have to disprove it?  What would it take to convince you that the theory is sufficiently falsified?


Evolution is absolutely falsifiable. We observe species changing over time, small changes, and then we see larger changes happening over larger time intervals. We then observe biodiversity in the present and the similarities between the genomes of different species, and then we propose the basic outline of what becomes the Theory of Evolution, proper. To falsify evolution you would need to demonstrate all of those observations are not the result of natural selection, but rather some other force.

Personally, I think you're being obtuse because for some reason evolution threatens your faith (I don't know why). It happened and to deny it is to deny the way God intended to create the universe. It's saying to God 'I can do better'... 'You should have done it like this'. The creation doesn't get to dictate terms to the Creator; that is pride, the sin mankind revels in more than any other. All of the anti-science posters on this board are very religious. You don't think that's more than a coincidence? People rejected the heliocentric model of the solar system. Of course, those same people would say a top-down view of the solar system doesn't exist so you can't prove it. la la la la la wilful ignorance la la la la

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I don't demand laboratory proof of the big bang or evolution, because I know there isn't any, and I say the same about God and creation. I can't provide scientific proof for that either.


Working on it...

----------


## matt0611

> Evolution is absolutely falsifiable. We observe species changing over time, small changes, and then we see larger changes happening over larger time intervals. We then observe biodiversity in the present and the similarities between the genomes of different species, and then we propose the basic outline of what becomes the Theory of Evolution, proper. To falsify evolution you would need to demonstrate all of those observations are not the result of natural selection, but rather some other force.
> 
> Personally, I think you're being obtuse because for some reason evolution threatens your faith (I don't know why). It happened and to deny it is to deny the way God intended to create the universe. It's saying to God 'I can do better'... 'You should have done it like this'. The creation doesn't get to dictate terms to the Creator; that is pride, the sin mankind revels in more than any other. All of the anti-science posters on this board are very religious. You don't think that's more than a coincidence? People rejected the heliocentric model of the solar system. Of course, those same people would say a top-down view of the solar system doesn't exist so you can't prove it. la la la la la wilful ignorance la la la la


Genome similarities are completely explained in an creation worldview. Genetics are the blueprints for life and species that are closely related to each other or that look and function similar to each other would, of course, have similar genetics. 

And I also have no problem with "small changes over time", natural selection, and even new species being developed, but there is a limit to this process. 

I disagree with you on the pride thing. To accept evolution is to deny the word of God, because that is not how creation unfolded in the Bible. A plain straight forward reading of Genesis does not fit AT ALL with the evolutionary worldview. Not even close. To accept evolution is pride, that's saying to God that it didn't happen as you told us, it happened THIS WAY. 

Evolution has absolutely not been observed, as even Richard Dawkins admits. It is only the interpretation of a naturalistic, materialistic, or simply atheistic worldview that requires it to have happened. It is accepted on faith from a certain worldview.

----------


## James Madison

> I disagree with you on the pride thing. To accept evolution is to deny the word of God, because that is not how creation unfolded in the Bible. A plain straight forward reading of Genesis does not fit AT ALL with the evolutionary worldview. Not even close. To accept evolution is pride, that's saying to God that it didn't happen as you told us, it happened THIS WAY. 
> 
> Evolution has absolutely not been observed, as even Richard Dawkins admits. It is only the interpretation of a naturalistic, materialistic, or simply atheistic worldview that requires it to have happened. It is accepted on faith from a certain worldview.


You are aware the six day creation story is not in the original Hebrew text, right? 

Anyways, let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that you're right (you aren't). If evolution has not been observed, then God has not been observed. Yet you have no problem accepting the latter and rejecting the former. You don't find that hypocritical?

----------


## erowe1

> You are aware the six day creation story is not in the original Hebrew text, right?


Yes it is.

Where did you hear that?

----------


## matt0611

> You are aware the six day creation story is not in the original Hebrew text, right? 
> 
> Anyways, let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that you're right (you aren't). If evolution has not been observed, then God has not been observed. Yet you have no problem accepting the latter and rejecting the former. You don't find that hypocritical?


I'm not sure what you mean by the creation part not being in the original Hebrew, could you expand on that please?

To your second question, God has not been observed directly by me, no. 

Like I said I can't take you into my lab and prove God to you with science experiments. But I don't believe in God because I observe him. I believe in God and accept the Bible as God's word as an axiom-like belief. Because I believe that is the only way the universe and existence makes sense (the nature and order of the universe, time, the nature of man, morality, logic, science, etc). I don't have direct observable evidence but I do have written accounts that I believe are absolutely true of people that, in history, did directly interact with God and Jesus Christ, his Son.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Anyways, let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that you're right (you aren't). If evolution has not been observed, then God has not been observed. Yet you have no problem accepting the latter and rejecting the former. You don't find that hypocritical?


It goes to show that both are religions (religions that can't be reconciled by the way).  If evolution is right, death came before sin...but the Bible says sin came before death.  Two different religions that cannot be reconciled.

----------


## James Madison

> Yes it is.
> 
> Where did you hear that?


The original Hebrew uses the word _yom_, which can mean a literal day, daylight, epoch, era, or any length of time. Order and Chaos are more literal translations of 'Day and Night'.

Most likely, those who translated the original text encountered an ambiguous passage and filled in the gaps based on the Church's dogma of that era. Just like that, we have a six day creation.




> It goes to show that both are religions (religions that can't be reconciled by the way).  If evolution is right, death came before sin...but the Bible says sin came before death.  Two different religions that cannot be reconciled.


Death in the Bible is described as being 'Dead to Sin'. Animals cannot sin. Plants cannot sin. Bacteria certainly cannot sin. Only humans can sin, so evolution still holds true.

----------


## otherone

> If evolution has not been observed, then God has not been observed. Yet you have no problem accepting the latter and rejecting the former. You don't find that hypocritical?


You are not familiar with the "alternate theory" strategy that Creationists have been trying to insinuate in science classes?  Creationists aren't trying to scientifically prove the Biblical account, what they are trying to do is drag evolution into the realm of religion, thereby disqualifying it as actual science.  Haven't you been paying attention when they say things like "evolution is based on faith", and "atheism is a religion"?  They aren't being hypocritical, they KNOW their beliefs are faith-based. They are trying to prove that it's the atheists who are the hypocrites.

----------


## erowe1

> The original Hebrew uses the word _yom_, which can mean a literal day, daylight, epoch, era, or any length of time. Order and Chaos are more literal translations of 'Day and Night'.
> 
> Most likely, those who translated the original text encountered an ambiguous passage and filled in the gaps based on the Church's dogma of that era. Just like that, we have a six day creation.


You just said that the six-day creation story is not in the original Hebrew text, and your evidence is that it uses a word that can mean day?

It's not just some group of Christians who translated it that way. It's all translators of all faiths. You won't find any who disagree, at least not among people who know much about Hebrew. The only people I've ever encountered who try to get epochs in the word "yom" in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 have been Christians who wanted to make it agree with their understanding of science.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Death in the Bible is described as being 'Dead to Sin'. Animals cannot sin. Plants cannot sin. Bacteria certainly cannot sin. Only humans can sin, so evolution still holds true.


It doesn't matter that bacteria or animals can't sin.  Adam's sin brought animal death:




> The first recorded death and passages referring to death as a reality came with sin in Genesis 3 when the serpent, Eve, and Adam all were disobedient to God. Please note that what happened is the first hint that things will die:
> 
> Genesis 3:14
> So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
> 
> Genesis 3:14 indicates that animals, which were cursed along with the serpent, would no longer live forever but have a limited life (all the days of your life). This is the first hint of animal death. Since animals were cursed, they too will now die.
> 
> Though this particular verse doesn’t rule out animal death prior to sin, its placement with sin and the Curse in Genesis 3 may very well be significant. The first recorded death of animals comes in Genesis 3:21, when God covered Adam and Eve with coats of skins to replace their fig leaf coverings they assumed would cover their nakedness.
> 
> ...

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I don't have any evidence that there is such a thing as DNA or atoms or electrons.  Not any that I can prove for myself.  I don't know if there is a god or gods.

Almost everything that we haven't proven to ourselves is accepted through what we call logical arguments and a certain trust that those that have done the proofs of something are telling the truth.  The thing is, who's telling the truth, since there are disagreements as to what is the truth of certain things.

There are things that are important to us whether we evolved or were created. And, so long as no one let's their blind faiths interfere with the struggle for those things, which I will refer to as freedom, liberty, justice, love, and the like, then those personal beliefs or faiths are not a problem.

What is the basis for your struggle for freedom and liberty and justice, for fair and equitable application of just laws?    How is it that people coming from different points of views, backgrounds and beliefs can have an internal desire to struggle for an external explanation and realization of those things?

In the mean time, it seems that god/s has left us to our own devices or are working in the background, if there be such as god/s.

Nature can be so cruel, if we see natural life as how it actually is.  The parasitic wasps lays it's eggs onto the back of the tobacco or tomato worm.  The larvae are hatched and eat the tobacco worms insides to survive.  

If mankind does not expand into the universe, but really does lengthen his lifespan and not kill his embryos or his youth in wars, where will he live?  And if he does, what will his life be like?  Is mankind part of the nature of earth or a parasite or passer by?

Is there a separation within the specie of mankind occurring (other than the self engineered version(s))?

----------


## JK/SEA

so humans haven't evolved?....really?....

lol

----------


## Theocrat

> No, scientific statements are built on evidence, hypotheses, and theories. Philosophical and religious statements are built on blind faith and opinions. We know evolution is true in the same way we know dark matter exists. 
> 
> I've already offered you the challenge: produce the evidence that falsifies evolution, get it published, and collect your Nobel Prize (and $1,000,000 cash). I want half since it was my idea.


James, you need to understand that evidences are always interpreted based on a person's worldview. Evidences are not neutral, therefore. In fact, there are plenty of evidences which falsify evolution that scientists who disagree with Darwinian evolution have published and taught on, and yet, the scientific establishment ignores and discards because of their implications of a Designer. Just so you don't think that I'm catering to creation scientists exclusively, there is a growing number of scientists (that are not creationists) who find the explanations of Darwinian evolution to be unsatisfactory. I recommend you read their works because it is a massive volume of information that continually chronicles how easily falsifiable evolution is.

As a start, here is a video that demonstrates my point:

----------


## libertyjam

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

----------


## Danan

> Not really.  Dark matter is observable, measurable, falsifiable, etc.  Evolution is not.  Since you are the one making the positive claim, is not the burden of proof on you?  Why do others have to disprove it?  What would it take to convince you that the theory is sufficiently falsified?


No, you are wrong. In fact, James Madison's analogy is a very good one. Dark matter is not "observable" the way you would require it in order to accept evolution.

Dark matter is called *dark* matter precisely because we can't observe it. However, with only observable matter cosmology wouldn't make any sense with our current understanding of gravitation. There are ways to determine the mass of ordinary, observable matter. But it would be way to little to account for observed gravitational forces in the universe. Thus, the hypothesis that the rest has to be unobservable "dark" matter, and "dark" energy.

The great difference to evolution, however, is that dark matter is simply a hypothesis, not a theory. It fits our current understanding of cosmology and especially gravitation. But we know *far* less about cosmology and gravitation than we know about biology, anthropology, archeology, etc. Evolution is supported by such a huge amount of evidence that falsifying it would require that everything we know about all these subjects was completely and utterly wrong. Basically, if evolution is "wrong" we know almost nothing about the world. Which doesn't seem to be the case, since we are utilizing this knowledge successfully on a daily basis.

There is observable evolution happening all the time. You dismiss this as merely "micro-evolution" which cannot possibly result in macro-evolution in the long run. There *are* examples where species evolved into distinct other species (http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/...he-laboratory/). Although normally you couldn't possibly point to any generation as being a "new and distinct species" from it's parent generation. Requiring that is accepting the Sorites paradox, stating that one grain of sand is a heap, since you can always take away one grain from a heap without it ceasing to be a heap, unless you make arbitrary distinctions. Such arbitrary distinctions like "species".

----------


## matt0611

> Basically, if evolution is "wrong" we know almost nothing about the world.


What a ridiculous statement, such an over exaggeration. 

All of mathematics we know and the rules of logic are still the same.

All of the laws of physics and laws of chemistry still remain.

I don't see how it would change modern medicine at all.

All of recorded human history still stays basically the same.

It changes some things in how we understand the big picture in biology but all the fundamentals that are replicated in a laboratory don't go away at all. I can crack open any general biology textbook and I can agree with 99.9% of it.

I'm a scientist and I don't believe in evolution but I've never felt that I "know almost nothing" of the world because I don't believe in evolution.

Evolutionists keep bringing up "new species" and changes in species over time. Again I have no problem with "new species" coming into existence and not being able to mate with other populations. Even mutations causing advantages. I have a problem with life forming from non-life and single celled organisms evolving over millions of years into animals and then man.

----------


## Natural Citizen

This probably goes someplace around here....

DARPA to Genetically Engineer Humans by Adding a 47th Chromosome

----------


## James Madison

> It doesn't matter that bacteria or animals can't sin.  Adam's sin brought animal death.


I would think you of all people would be sympathetic to evolutionists like myself. You constantly rail against the Catholic Church and its corrupting of Scripture. Isn't it just as likely that thousands of years ago men distorted the meaning of Scripture to fit with their own biases? The fact that Jesus spent most of the New Testament lecturing, teaching, giving parables, and fixing the mistakes of the Jewish leadership supports my hypothesis.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I would think you of all people would be sympathetic to evolutionists like myself. You constantly rail against the Catholic Church and its corrupting of Scripture. Isn't it just as likely that thousands of years ago men distorted the meaning of Scripture to fit with their own biases? The fact that Jesus spent most of the New Testament lecturing, teaching, giving parables, and fixing the mistakes of the Jewish leadership supports my hypothesis.


Whoa whoa whoa.  What is the *evidence* of textual corruption?

----------


## James Madison

> Whoa whoa whoa.  What is the *evidence* of textual corruption?


What is the *evidence* that the Bible is the word of God?

Textual corruption is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Wouldn't you say the Constitution has been corrupted: meanings changed, sematical arguments over words, additional amendments that go against the original document?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What is the *evidence* that the Bible is the word of God?
> 
> Textual corruption is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Wouldn't you say the Constitution has been corrupted: meanings changed, sematical arguments over words, additional amendments that go against the original document?


Ah...so there we go.  We get to the root of your apostacy.  You need to go to the Did The Bible Misquote Jesus thread, listen to the videos, and respond to the arguments.  Lets get to the root of your unbelief.

----------


## georgiaboy

> ....
> As a start, here is a video that demonstrates my point:


Ok, I had heard about some of this stuff but have never seen this video (gotta watch all 12 clips to get the whole video).

Truly fascinating, logical, and affirming!  Thanks!  Gives "the Information Age" a whole new meaning.

----------


## mczerone

> But if the change is a series of very small ones,how can a minor change really help survivability to be much of an advantage compared to the other offspring? also,why would the unchanged animal be able to survive long enough to pass on its genes prior too its mutated offspring but all of the sudden when one offspring is different the others now have issues with being able to survive long enough to pass on its genes to another generation?


To take a salient example: There are distributions of humans with a peculiar mutation that doesn't really convey an advantage, but exists just because it doesn't harm the carrier, namely "blue eyes".

This mutation can exist forever, or can disappear. But if we assume that there's some kind of fictional "solar disruption" or atmospheric change that later give blue eyes and advantage, then all those mutants with a current harmless mutation will then be granted a huge advantage.

There's many ways for speciation to occur. There's also sexual selection: aesthetics might choose blue eyes until they become the norm. There's also bottleneck effects: 90% of humans might die for some reason (e.g. meteor strike), and it just happens by chance that most of the survivors have blue eyes. There's also "Founder's effects": A small group of humans move to a new continent, and it just happens that most of the few founders have blue eyes, and therefore blue eyes become the common type in the new population - and they might have a better environment to grow a large population than the people who didn't move - eventually the blue-eyed people could become the dominant form of "human" on the Earth.

It's not always that mutations that survive are because they confer an immediate benefit. Mutations simply survive as long as they are not fatally detrimental. And then something else might happen that makes one group of mutations more fit for survival than others (sometimes directly related to the form of the mutations, sometimes by pure happenstance). Sometimes mutations are directly beneficial, though; a mutation that allows for a higher rate of oxygen absorption from the lungs might allow an individual to run faster and either hunt better or evade predators better, even slightly, than their non-mutated neighbors - this would be an immediately selected mutation.

----------


## Theocrat

> ...There is observable evolution happening all the time. You dismiss this as merely "micro-evolution" which cannot possibly result in macro-evolution in the long run. There *are* examples where species evolved into distinct other species (http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/21/...he-laboratory/). Although normally you couldn't possibly point to any generation as being a "new and distinct species" from it's parent generation. Requiring that is accepting the Sorites paradox, stating that one grain of sand is a heap, since you can always take away one grain from a heap without it ceasing to be a heap, unless you make arbitrary distinctions. Such arbitrary distinctions like "species".


Evolution is not observable. There is no way one can observe "millions of years" of gradual changes in an organism by means of natural selection in a laboratory. That is a *historical* claim, and therefore, it is a claim full of assumptions about the past and based on faith. Variations in kinds of animals occurs in nature, whereby, we can see that some insects become resistant to pesticides (for instance), while other insects don't. The insects who are resistant to pesticides live on to pass those traits to their offspring, but they still remain an insect. They don't evolve into something that is non-insectlike, such as a frog or a wolf or a buffalo. Their genetic information has limits. That has been proven scientifically over and over again. So, you are obviously wrong about evolution being observable. The only way it's observable if someone *imagines that it could have happen that way*, and that's exactly the language that evolutionists use.

----------


## mczerone

> Evolution is not observable. There is no way one can observe "millions of years" of gradual changes in an organism by means of natural selection in a laboratory. That is a *historical* claim, and therefore, it is a claim full of assumptions about the past and based on faith. Variations in kinds of animals occurs in nature, whereby, we can see that some insects become resistant to pesticides (for instance), while other insects don't. The insects who are resistant to pesticides live on to pass those traits to their offspring, but they still remain an insect. *They don't evolve into something that is non-insectlike, such as a frog or a wolf or a buffalo.* Their genetic information has limits. *That has been proven scientifically over and over again.* So, you are obviously wrong about evolution being observable. The only way it's observable if someone *imagines that it could have happen that way*, and that's exactly the language that evolutionists use.


An ant can't turn into a buffalo in 10 generations, therefore science proves God did it?

You've really taken the creationist arguments off the deep end.

----------


## Theocrat

> An ant can't turn into a buffalo in 10 generations, therefore science proves God did it?
> 
> You've really taken the creationist arguments off the deep end.


Where in any of my posts did I offer that argument, mczerone?

----------


## erowe1

> An ant can't turn into a buffalo in 10 generations.


Let's change that just a little.

Hypothesis:



> An ant can't spawn an elephant in X generations, no matter how great X is.


Do you honestly believe science has disproved that hypothesis?

----------


## mczerone

> Where in any of my posts did I offer that argument, mczerone?


The one I quoted...




> Variations in kinds of animals occurs in nature, whereby, we can see that some insects become resistant to pesticides (for instance), while other insects don't. *The insects who are resistant to pesticides live on to pass those traits to their offspring, but they still remain an insect. They don't evolve into something that is non-insectlike, such as a frog or a wolf or a buffalo.* Their genetic information has limits. T*hat has been proven scientifically over and over again.* So, you are obviously wrong about evolution being observable. The only way it's observable if someone imagines that it could have happen that way, and that's exactly the language that evolutionists use.


You asked for evidence, received it, then moved the goalposts to demand impossible evidence.

----------


## mczerone

> Let's change that just a little.
> 
> Hypothesis:
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe science has disproved that hypothesis?


I'd say that science has "disproved that hypothesis." An ant can't spawn an elephant. 

An ant's progeny, however, might be SO VASTLY DIFFERENT from the ancestral ant that it would not be sexually compatible, and therefore a different species. That progeny _might_ evolve gigantism, an external skin organ, a long nasal appendage, and large "ears" so as to resemble a modern elephant.

----------


## erowe1

> I'd say that science has "disproved that hypothesis." An ant can't spawn an elephant. 
> 
> An ant's progeny, however, might be SO VASTLY DIFFERENT from the ancestral ant that it would not be sexually compatible, and therefore a different species. That progeny _might_ evolve gigantism, an external skin organ, a long nasal appendage, and large "ears" so as to resemble a modern elephant.


When I said spawn, I meant to include what you described. I'm not sure what the right word is.

I'd like to see this proof.

----------


## mczerone

> When I said spawn, I meant to include what you described. I'm not sure what the right word is.
> 
> I'd like to see this proof.


Proof of WHAT?

Assuming you are asking for a proof of "an ant could do such an "evolution" to a non-sexually compatible "eleph-ANT"" - what evidence would you require to prove such a statement?

A "proof" is technically only valid in the "ideal" sciences like mathematics and logic; subjects that are reducible to ideal forms that are only symbolic of the observable world. I can prove that the sum of the first N cubes is the square of the sum of the first N numbers. I can't "prove" anything from physics or biology objectively. I can only provide compelling evidence that a hypothesis is generally acceptable.

----------


## erowe1

> All this means is that we haven't discovered an explanation.. That's all.


What you said right here, Kotin, illustrates a major problem with trusting science to explain origins. It all becomes a big game, rather than a search for truth.

You start with the challenge of trying to explain everything by way of regular processes that we can observe and systematize. You rule out from the starting point that the right explanation for anything could ever be something outside these regular processes we observe (i.e. a miracle). And you never ever arrive at a final coherent grand unified system for your explanations. They're always being challenged, and revised, and supposedly getting closer to the truth without ever getting there. And then, whenever they fail to explain anything, you can just say, "Well, that's just one of the parts we don't have the explanation for yet." There will never come a day when science will be done getting refined, at which that line will no longer be useful.

So it boils down to uniformitarians having their own "God of the gaps." And at no point can this approach ever establish the truthfulness of its own axiom that no miracle has ever happened.

----------


## erowe1

> Proof of WHAT?


You said science had disproved the hypothesis I presented.

That means that you (or someone) have proof that the hypothesis is false.

I'd like to see that proof.

----------


## erowe1

> A "proof" is technically only valid in the "ideal" sciences like mathematics and logic;


So you don't believe that the physical sciences involve falsifying theories? Because to falsify something necessarily includes proving something.

I've encountered others who raise as a major objection against the claim that God created things miraculously that it's unfalsifiable.

----------


## mczerone

> So you don't believe that the physical sciences involve falsifying theories? Because to falsify something necessarily includes proving something.
> 
> I've encountered others who raise as a major objection against the claim that God created things miraculously that it's unfalsifiable.


Let's say you have a bag with 3 apples and 4 oranges in it.

I have a theory that says that any bag containing 7 fruits in it must contain 2 apples, 2 oranges, and 3 pears.

I inspect your bag, testing my hypothesis, and discover 3 apples and 4 oranges.

One could claim that I should keep my theory and disregard my observation, obviously one of those apples and 2 of those oranges were really pears. But if I can't trust my observations, then making predictions about my observations becomes meaningless.

Therefore, to be consistent and trust my observations, I must say that my theory was DISPROVED THROUGH OBSERVATION.

The (revised) statement that "A colony of ants will not produce an elephant" is not a theory that can be tested: the only way to KNOW would be to run every possible scenario for an infinite amount of time.

I'm not going to get into a BASIC lecture on the theory of the scientific method with you. You're not interested in it, or you could go to youtube and find a much better lecture than I could provide here.

----------


## Theocrat

> The one I quoted...
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for evidence, received it, then moved the goalposts to demand impossible evidence.


The evidence presented showed micro-evolution, which creationists affirm because it can be demonstrated. The evidence did not prove that macro-evolution is observable. I haven't "moved any goalposts." I'm asking for empirical evidence that shows (based on observation, which is the first step of the scientific method) that living organisms evolve over millions of years by means of natural selection, and show how that can be demonstrated and repeated in a laboratory or in nature. That is how the methodologies of the natural sciences work. If evolutionists cannot meet that criterion, then they cannot call their assertion "science." In fact, it is nothing but faith in an impersonal process, believing that it can increase complexity of living organisms, which, of course, is never shown in nature.

----------


## erowe1

> Let's say you have a bag with 3 apples and 4 oranges in it.
> 
> I have a theory that says that any bag containing 7 fruits in it must contain 2 apples, 2 oranges, and 3 pears.
> 
> I inspect your bag, testing my hypothesis, and discover 3 apples and 4 oranges.
> 
> One could claim that I should keep my theory and disregard my observation, obviously one of those apples and 2 of those oranges were really pears. But if I can't trust my observations, then making predictions about my observations becomes meaningless.
> 
> Therefore, to be consistent and trust my observations, I must say that my theory was DISPROVED THROUGH OBSERVATION.


So, now you're saying that you can have proofs in the physical sciences?




> The (revised) statement that "A colony of ants will not produce an elephant" is not a theory that can be tested: the only way to KNOW would be to run every possible scenario for an infinite amount of time.


That's not true. You would only have to run tests until a single one produced an elephant. This would disprove it by observation, just like what you described above.

I agree with you though, that as a matter of fact, you would need an infinite amount of time. I think the fact that you said that reveals that you secretly know that in no finite amount of time would an elephant ever be descended from an ant. Reflecting on the ramifications of that conviction would do you well.

At any rate, you are the one who said that science had disproved the hypothesis. Are you now taking that back and saying that it hasn't?

----------


## robert9712000

Whats interesting is according to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution  ,it took 2.6 billion years to go from a single cell organisms too the first multi celled organism,which according to one site i read it takes some single cell bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce,So reproducing every 20 minutes it still took 2.6 billion years for the first multi celled organism.Now assuming theres billions and billions of reproductions happening every 20 minutes thats a unfathomable number of times for a mutation too become a multi celled organism by chance.

Yet i am to believe that even though it took that many changes to go from a single celled organism to the first multi celled one,that in the last 1 billion years ,life went from the basic multi celled creature to humans?Even though its one third the time span and the reproduction rate is now years instead of minutes.So the number of times for possible change to even be able to happen is greatly reduced, yet the complexity has increased by a unfathomable amount from basic multi celled creatures to humans.At the rate it took just to make the leap from single cell to multi celled,the complexity of a human should have taken trillions and trillions of years if left only too chance.

 Sorry that takes some faith there.

----------


## mczerone

> So, now you're saying that you can have proofs in the physical sciences?
> 
> 
> That's not true. You would only have to run tests until a single one produced an elephant. This would disprove it by observation, just like what you described above.
> 
> I agree with you though, that as a matter of fact, you would need an infinite amount of time. I think the fact that you said that reveals that you secretly know that in no finite amount of time would an elephant ever be descended from an ant. Reflecting on the ramifications of that conviction would do you well.
> 
> At any rate, you are the one who said that science had disproved the hypothesis. Are you now taking that back and saying that it hasn't?


Science: (1) The offspring of an animal has a combination of it's mother's and father's genetic code. (2) Ants have a specific genetic code. (3) Elephants have a distinct genetic code that evolved in a separate lineage from the ant, at least for the last 600 million years or so. (4) there's a vanishingly small probability that the lineage of some ant alive today will evolve to have the same genetic code as a modern elephant, but the time required for that suite of genes to be selected, and the ant's current genes to be de-selected would be many trillions of times longer than the current age of the universe.

Look, no one can prove that bigfoot doesn't exist. All we can do is say that it's increasingly unlikely as more and more land is explored and more and more people have more sophisticated cameras. Bigfoot could just be hiding behind that next oak tree. Or maybe bigfoot is a trans-dimensional being and disappears when anyone living on our astral wavelength tries to observe him. And maybe an ant's grand-kid could be an elephant. And maybe some supernatural force created life 6000 years ago and threw a bunch of fossils in the ground to test our faith.

It all could happen. If you ignore all the evidence telling you that it couldn't or change the definitions of what you're looking for as the original claims get ruled out.

----------


## mczerone

> Whats interesting is according to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution  ,it took 2.6 billion years to go from a single cell organisms too the first multi celled organism,which according to one site i read it takes some single cell bacteria 20 minutes to reproduce,So reproducing every 20 minutes it still took 2.6 billion years for the first multi celled organism.Now assuming theres billions and billions of reproductions happening every 20 minutes thats a unfathomable number of times for a mutation too become a multi celled organism by chance.
> 
> Yet i am to believe that even though it took that many changes to go from a single celled organism to the first multi celled one,that in the last 1 billion years ,life went from the basic multi celled creature to humans?Even though its one third the time span and the reproduction rate is now years instead of minutes.So the number of times for possible change to even be able to happen is greatly reduced, yet the complexity has increased by a unfathomable amount from basic multi celled creatures to humans.At the rate it took just to make the leap from single cell to multi celled,the complexity of a human should have taken trillions and trillions of years if left only too chance.
> 
>  Sorry that takes some faith there.


"I don't understand evolution and have questions about how it's said to have worked. Therefore I'll decide that it's wrong. I don't want to bother actually thinking about anything or investigate any evidence."

Look, in the "standard theory" there was a hot goo covering the Earth 4 billion years ago. There were some organic chemicals, and possibly some amino acids and more complex molecules.

These were most likely just randomly strewn about the surface, left to bump into each other as they floated around the physical system. There was no motive force for life, there was no mechanism for reproduction or metabolization.

Slowly, certain molecules came together, by chance, by divine intervention, or for some other serendipitous reason, that were able to chemically react with other molecules in their vicinity to create more of the original molecules. These molecules eventually found/fostered lipid shells, protein chains, and enzymes that helped the molecule reproduce more reliably and more fruitfully.

That only had to happen ONCE on the whole planet for the gears of complex life to take hold and rapidly develop different organisms.

It's exponential in the level of complexity, it just needed 2 billion years for the first few steps to happen by chance. From there each advance begat multiple more advances in less and less time, until a new homeostasis is developed in the ecosystem. Then there's a disruption and a new evolutionary boom. rinse. repeat.

----------


## matt0611

> And maybe some supernatural force created life 6000 years ago and threw a bunch of fossils in the ground to test our faith.


I don't know a single christian who believes that God just threw some fossils in the ground to test our faith (not saying they don't exist but I've personally never encountered any and I would oppose that stance). I believe all of those creatures once roamed the Earth at some point. I have no problem at all with believing in that and the Bible.

Could there be a "bigfoot" like creature out there somewhere? I have no problem believing in it as a possibility, I would say its very unlikely but we haven't searched every square foot of wilderness for it. They find new species of mammals every once in a while so who knows. I wouldn't bet on any being found though. But I won't say "bigfoot doesn't exist" 100%.

----------


## mczerone

> I don't know a single christian who believes that God just threw some fossils in the ground to test our faith (not saying they don't exist but I've personally never encountered any and I would oppose that stance). I believe all of those creatures once roamed the Earth at some point. I have no problem at all with believing in that and the Bible.


I got the feeling from some people in this thread that this was their view by the way they treated fossil evidence in their debating.

----------


## Theocrat

> I got the feeling from some people in this thread that this was their view by the way they treated fossil evidence in their debating.


Fossils are another evidence that points to the truth of Biblical Creationism, insofar as showing us that there was a global flood which God used to destroy the world by water, except for eight people. Creationists believe in evidences, and we don't have to hide behind a "God of the gaps" notion in order to deal with the things in nature that we don't understand.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Proof of WHAT?
> 
> Assuming you are asking for a proof of "an ant could do such an "evolution" to a non-sexually compatible "eleph-ANT"" - what evidence would you require to prove such a statement?
> *
> A "proof" is technically only valid in the "ideal" sciences like mathematics and logic; subjects that are reducible to ideal forms that are only symbolic of the observable world. I can prove that the sum of the first N cubes is the square of the sum of the first N numbers. I can't "prove" anything from physics or biology objectively. I can only provide compelling evidence that a hypothesis is generally acceptable*.


Hypotheses can be proven in the hard sciences (mathematics, chemistry, etc).  The "soft sciences" (anthropology, sociology, etc)-not so much.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Hypotheses can be proven in the hard sciences (mathematics, chemistry, etc).  The "soft sciences" (anthropology, sociology, etc)-not so much.



Well. It comes down to tolerance of the unknown.

----------


## James Madison

> Fossils are another evidence that points to the truth of Biblical Creationism, insofar as showing us that there was a global flood which God used to destroy the world by water, except for eight people. Creationists believe in evidences, and we don't have to hide behind a "God of the gaps" notion in order to deal with the things in nature that we don't understand.


Wait, wait, wait, wait...you actually believe in a literal, global flood?

----------


## matt0611

> Wait, wait, wait, wait...you actually believe in a literal, global flood?


Genesis makes no sense to me without believing in some type of literal global flood, also Jesus spoke of it as a real event.

I don't see how someone can claim they are a Christian and believe in the Bible and not believe there was some type of literal global flood in history at some point.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Wait, wait, wait, wait...you actually believe in a literal, global flood?


It happens.

Heck, I wouldn't rule out _a few of them_ here and there. Who says there was only _one_ anyhow?

Genesis is my favorite Book of the Bible too.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Genesis makes no sense to me without believing in some type of literal global flood,...
> I don't see how someone can claim they are a Christian and believe in the Bible and not believe there was some type of literal global flood in history at some point.


Even if you're not a Christian it's difficult to_ not_ accept that these have happened. Maybe not a real life and genuine "global flood" every time but close enough to assume it was a washout. You know?

----------


## James Madison

> Ah...so there we go.  We get to the root of your apostacy.  You need to go to the Did The Bible Misquote Jesus thread, listen to the videos, and respond to the arguments.  Lets get to the root of your unbelief.


Apostacy? Root of my unbelief? 

You take yourself way too seriously, dude. All you do in every thread is lord over everyone with this smug, holier-than-thou pseudo-intellectualism that could have only derived itself from not being hugged enough as a child, an inferiority complex, a pathological need to hear yourself talk, or some combination of the three. You rip on everyone's religion and whenever anybody calls you out on your bull$#@! you hide behind tl;dr essays or your own inane ramblings about predestination, original sin, and eternal damnation. You're really big on that last one. It's like your personal fetish to tell everyone they're going to Hell; you act like you care, but you really don't because your own belief system denies free will and makes any discussion with you the intellectual equivalent of banging your head against a wall while you shoot yourself over and over again. You should have been banned a long time ago, AquaBuddah2010, for violating this board's ToA. You take every discussion about theology and devolve it into a one-man circlejerk with same lines we've heard before. It's getting old. Peace.

----------


## James Madison

> Genesis makes no sense to me without believing in some type of literal global flood, also Jesus spoke of it as a real event.
> 
> I don't see how someone can claim they are a Christian and believe in the Bible and not believe there was some type of literal global flood in history at some point.


No true Scotsman fallacy, right here, folks.

Noah managed to gather life from every part of the world (including Antarctica and the New World [which wouldn't be discovered for another 3,000 years]). He managed to culture bacteria in giant industrial incubators deep in the bowels of the arc despite having absolutely zero knowledge of microbiology or even the existence of microorganisms (which wouldn't be discovered until the 17th Century). He was ever-so-thougtful to keep a stock of smallpox, influenza, cholera, tuberculosis, plague, anthrax, malaria, schistosomes, tetanus, botulism, rabies, yellow fever, dengue, trypanosomes, leishmania, mosquitos, ticks, fleas, rats, flies...you know, I think I have made my point.

----------


## mczerone

> Hypotheses can be proven in the hard sciences (mathematics, chemistry, etc).  The "soft sciences" (anthropology, sociology, etc)-not so much.


There's two different kinds of chemistry, though - the study of the ideal model of molecules, and the study of actual molecules.

You can create irrefutable proofs starting from the axioms of the models, but you can only hypothesize that these proofs will align with reality.

Quantum effects can produce surprising results in chemistry that would not follow the models.

Also, the "soft sciences" can be reduced to ideal axioms that can lead to "hard" proofs: the entire school of Austrian economics is based on such proofs.

----------


## robert9712000

> "I don't understand evolution and have questions about how it's said to have worked. Therefore I'll decide that it's wrong. I don't want to bother actually thinking about anything or investigate any evidence."
> 
> Look, in the "standard theory" there was a hot goo covering the Earth 4 billion years ago. There were some organic chemicals, and possibly some amino acids and more complex molecules.
> 
> These were most likely just randomly strewn about the surface, left to bump into each other as they floated around the physical system. There was no motive force for life, there was no mechanism for reproduction or metabolization.
> 
> Slowly, certain molecules came together, by chance, by divine intervention, or for some other serendipitous reason, that were able to chemically react with other molecules in their vicinity to create more of the original molecules. These molecules eventually found/fostered lipid shells, protein chains, and enzymes that helped the molecule reproduce more reliably and more fruitfully.
> 
> That only had to happen ONCE on the whole planet for the gears of complex life to take hold and rapidly develop different organisms.
> ...


my observation was about after the creation of life,which supposedly only took 1 billion years.So the event to spark life ill give you is a giant first step,but i was talking about after single cell organisms had already formed and already learned how to replicate itself.It only took 1 billion for life to begin,but 2.6 billion to go from 1 cell to the first basic multi celled and then only 1 billion to go from a basic multi celled to the human beings.Since this is all left too chance and where not talking about the spark of life but the progression of more complicated life.

Is not the advancement from a basic multi celled creature to humans a much more giant leap in complexity than from a 1 cell creatures to the first multi celled?  

also keep in mind the number of times for chance to create humans is diminished by first 1/3 of the time span it took and diminished by the length in between the creation of offspring which leads to change,going from minutes to years,therefore going by your model because there can be no intelligent design but only chance,the transition from a single cell to the first multi celled vs the transition from a basic multi celled to humans just doesnt seem to correlate logically in the time difference each supposedly took

----------


## DamianTV

Evolution 101:  What do you get when a Elephant mates with a Rhino?  Elephino!

(thats " 'El if I know", or "hell if I know"...  yeah not so funny if I have to explain it)

----------


## matt0611

> No true Scotsman fallacy, right here, folks.
> 
> Noah managed to gather life from every part of the world (including Antarctica and the New World [which wouldn't be discovered for another 3,000 years]). He managed to culture bacteria in giant industrial incubators deep in the bowels of the arc despite having absolutely zero knowledge of microbiology or even the existence of microorganisms (which wouldn't be discovered until the 17th Century). He was ever-so-thougtful to keep a stock of smallpox, influenza, cholera, tuberculosis, plague, anthrax, malaria, schistosomes, tetanus, botulism, rabies, yellow fever, dengue, trypanosomes, leishmania, mosquitos, ticks, fleas, rats, flies...you know, I think I have made my point.


It's not a fallacy, I didn't say you can't be a Christian, I just said I don't understand how one could be one without believing it. 

I believe it was a miraculous event but Noah only had to take one of every kind of animal and not species. So only one kind of wolf/dog, one kind of bear, etc

The rest of the species we see today "evolved" from those different kinds that survived. 

As for all the viruses and bacteria, I can only speculate but I believe they could have survived in various different ways, some carried by the humans on board, some carried by the animals, some could have "evolved" (mutated) from relatively harmless types carried aboard the ark to what they are today, I suppose some could survive in the human corpses that washed ashore after, some carried by insects (mosquitos perhaps) etc

I don't believe he took insects on the ark either, only land-breathing land-dwelling creatures. The insects would have survived in different ways (accidentally being carried on the ark, floating debris, floating vegetation etc)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Apostacy? Root of my unbelief? 
> 
> You take yourself way too seriously, dude. All you do in every thread is lord over everyone with this smug, holier-than-thou pseudo-intellectualism that could have only derived itself from not being hugged enough as a child, an inferiority complex, a pathological need to hear yourself talk, or some combination of the three. You rip on everyone's religion and whenever anybody calls you out on your bull$#@! you hide behind tl;dr essays or your own inane ramblings about predestination, original sin, and eternal damnation. You're really big on that last one. It's like your personal fetish to tell everyone they're going to Hell; you act like you care, but you really don't because your own belief system denies free will and makes any discussion with you the intellectual equivalent of banging your head against a wall while you shoot yourself over and over again. You should have been banned a long time ago, AquaBuddah2010, for violating this board's ToA. You take every discussion about theology and devolve it into a one-man circlejerk with same lines we've heard before. It's getting old. Peace.


I understand how you feel, but you are trying to mix evolution in with the Bible, and it doesnt mix.  Its one thing to say there has been textual corruption, its another thing to prove it.  Thats what I wanted you to try to do.

----------


## erowe1

> It all could happen. If you ignore all the evidence telling you that it couldn't or change the definitions of what you're looking for as the original claims get ruled out.


Why ignore any evidence?

Also, I'm confused. Are you still saying that science has disproved that hypothesis (like you said it had initially)? Or are you no longer saying that?

----------


## Quark

To those who don't accept macro-evolution as scientific, what are your thoughts on the endosymbiotic theory? Particularly the genetic evidence for the relationship between mitochondria, chloroplasts and cyanobacteria. Also what are your thoughts on the genetics of morphological evolution (if you've ever read the book: Your Inner Fish it gives you an idea of the field.) I'm assuming that you've educated yourself (thoroughly) in evolutionary theory before labeling it as not having sufficient evidence to be scientific. So these topics shouldn't be foreign.

----------


## mczerone

> my observation was about after the creation of life,which supposedly only took 1 billion years.So the event to spark life ill give you is a giant first step,but i was talking about after single cell organisms had already formed and already learned how to replicate itself.It only took 1 billion for life to begin,but 2.6 billion to go from 1 cell to the first basic multi celled and then only 1 billion to go from a basic multi celled to the human beings.Since this is all left too chance and where not talking about the spark of life but the progression of more complicated life.
> 
> Is not the advancement from a basic multi celled creature to humans a much more giant leap in complexity than from a 1 cell creatures to the first multi celled?  
> 
> also keep in mind the number of times for chance to create humans is diminished by first 1/3 of the time span it took and diminished by the length in between the creation of offspring which leads to change,going from minutes to years,therefore going by your model because there can be no intelligent design but only chance,the transition from a single cell to the first multi celled vs the transition from a basic multi celled to humans just doesnt seem to correlate logically in the time difference each supposedly took


1st: "By chance" isn't the right way to look at things after reproductive life took hold. Certainly the individual mutations at the genetic level were random, but the feedback mechanisms and the rapid development of more adaptive generations make the random walk more of a ratchet that can't go backward. The only randomness on a generational level is how fast the organism makes innovative leaps.

2nd: Look at an exponential curve, or a logarithmic curve. If the vertical axis measures "complexity" or maybe (more scientifically) "local anti-entropy", and the horizontal measures time, then at the start there's a LONG, SLOW development period, where new advances take place at a rate that's not fathomable by our mortal minds. Then, seemingly all of a sudden, there's a rapid growth. Things have built a cumulative base that allows for more and more growth at a rate proportionate to the current level of complexity.

In real life you'd see this curve taper off after a while, once the organism has neared the "peak" of efficiency based on it's current systemic makeup. After another long time of mutation, adaption, and environmental changes, there'd be another boom, then another plateau, then another boom.

3rd: your measure of "complex" is the wrong thing to look at. Look at the difficulty of the steps. It was much more difficult to rely on random fluid dynamics to get the ingredients together to make the first cells. It was still very difficult for cells to nucleate their genetic molecules to allow for specialization (each cell only using a part of the code), and for pairs or groups of cells to start to work together using the same base genetics but doing different things to sustain a new "multi-cellular organism". Then it was less hard to develop a group of cells devoted to metabolism, a group for locomotion, and a group for stability/strength (skeletal structures). Then it was less hard to develop bilateral symmetry, cells for observation, cells for analyzing the observations, and cells for sexual reproduction with other organisms. Then it was less hard for these cells to develop the best fins, the best stomachs, the best eyes and noses. Then it was less hard for these cells to adapt to walking on land than swimming, to breathing air instead of filtering water. Then it was less hard for super runners to evolve, for throwers, for thinkers, for flyers, for each new "complex" to adapt quickly and uniquely to give the genetic line the best chance to survive against co-evolving predators and prey.

Your reckoning of time and of how "chance" works are failing to account for how much time really passed and how likely things really are. Further, your measure of current biological organisms doesn't really align with how "evolution" could be measured. I hope I've given you a good basis to think about these problems further, and I appreciate your continued involvement in the discussion. Note also that I've never ruled out some supernatural force - I've only outlined how the standard story can work without one being actively designing each next step, or each type of organism.

----------


## mczerone

> Why ignore any evidence?
> 
> Also, I'm confused. Are you still saying that science has disproved that hypothesis (like you said it had initially)? Or are you no longer saying that?


Science has proved that the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic reproduction could not allow an ant lineage to produce an elephant in any length of real time and with the best designed environmental triggers.

Genetics just doesn't work that way.

But, at the same time, I grant that, given the right environmental pressures, an ant could beget a lineage that evolved gigantism, large ears, grey external skin, big ears, four legs, and a long prehensile nasal appendage. If you want to call that an elephant, fine. But it would still have remnants of ant DNA within it, and wouldn't have the same DNA coding for those things as modern elephants do.

I don't think that you understand the language of science and the related language of logic. "Proof" in the ideal sense, is that the assertion CAN'T be false - this only applies to logic, mathematics, and axiomatic thinking where contradictions can be put on paper to show something MUST be true given the assumptions (axioms). In the area of biology, the thinking relies on hypothesizing, testing, and analyzing. There is no PROOF of a positive claim, there is only evidence. Sometimes that evidence can be conclusive, but there might always be some exception that hasn't been encountered yet. There is also no disproving a potentiality. "It's possible that A=>B" can't be shown to be wrong with observational science - it can only be shown to not usually happen, or to not have happened in every case we've tried so far. But there might be something we're overlooking, or some circumstances that make A=>B, even if it's not the case in our day-to-day circumstances.

You asked:



> Has "An ant can't spawn an elephant in X generations, no matter how great X is" been _disproven_?


I've tried to approach the problem from many different angles, seeing that you were ambiguous in your question. There's a double negative that I'm not sure that you meant. There's no reference to "proof" being the standard of the ideal type where the proposition needs to be shown to be logically certain (or necessarily self-contradictory in the negative) or to the standard of observational sciences. I've tried distinguishing between the specific "elephant" that we are used to, versus "an elephant-like organism that may not be genetically related to modern elephants".

So to answer your question once and for all: Maybe. It depends on what the hell you mean be at least 3 different terms.

----------


## robert9712000

Interesting article here about a shark that walks instead of swims.

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/scie...sia-01335.html

So going by the theory that evolutionary change happens because the process of survival of the fittest means that creatures with a mutation that gives it a advantage over its counter part in its species, allows it too eventually become the dominant gene in the species,how does a walking shark still exist today?

 Clearly a walking shark has no advantage over a swimming shark ,so theres 2 scenarios from a evolutionary standpoint.

 A. The walking shark is the original species before its species started swimming ,which one would then ask, why is it still around when it should have died out because the new mutated version that could swim should have become the dominant species since it had a advantage.

 B. The walking shark is the mutated version of the swimming shark, which one would again ask how does a mutated version that doesnt swim have any kind of advantage over a swimming shark that would allow its evolutionary path to overtake a swimming sharks genetic code to become the dominate style of the species.

 So please explain how a walking shark has any advantage at all over a swimming shark in water?

 Also, explain how it is possible for a mutation to become the dominate style in the species when the mutation gives no advantage and most likely gives it a disadvantage to its counter part.

 If a mutation in a species can become the dominant style in the species without being a advantage to its survival ,then it calls into question the whole concept that evolutionary change is driven by the progression of mutations that give a advantage to its counterpart,thus allowing a minority style in the species to eventually overtake the original and become the new standard for the species.

----------


## erowe1

> I don't think that you understand the language of science and the related language of logic. "Proof" in the ideal sense, is that the assertion CAN'T be false - this only applies to logic, mathematics, and axiomatic thinking where contradictions can be put on paper to show something MUST be true given the assumptions (axioms).


But it wasn't just I who used that language. You did too. You claimed that science had disproved something. And then later you talked about falsification, as though that is within the realm of science. That's what's so confusing. I still can't tell what your position is.

Do the physical sciences involve falsifying hypotheses? Or do they not? If they do, then to falsify something is to prove something. There's no getting around that.

ETA: Considering your final sentences, as I look at the statement you have trouble understanding, I see nothing ambiguous or confusing about it. Perhaps the inability to understand the language of science is yours.

----------


## oyarde

There are walking fish , the snakehead has lungs .

----------


## Theocrat

There are 12 organ systems within human beings:
Integumentary systemDigestive systemCardiovascular systemLymphatic systemImmune systemRespiratory systemUrinary systemSkeletal systemMuscular systemNervous systemEndocrine systemReproductive systemEvolution by means of natural selection cannot make sense of how all of those organ systems (as well as the organs within the systems) all came into being by random mutations. You need all of the systems in place (because they are interdependent upon each other), or else you can't have a living human being. More importantly, there is no evidence of proto-human organ systems in nature, whereby it can be seen that mutations occur in them to evolve into a fully-formed, fully-functional organ system as we observe them today in human beings. All we ever observe (as in the medical sciences) is human beings with human organ systems already intact and already operating, based on intricate design and programmed information to perform their given functions.

So, human organ systems are just another irrefutable evidence that evolution (on a macro level, in terms of the hypothesis that it points to common descent amongst all living organisms) simply does not and cannot happen in nature. Therefore, belief in evolutionary processes is one based on blind faith and wishful thinking.

----------


## oyarde

There are  gliding ( flying ) possums in Australia .

----------


## James Madison

> There are  gliding ( flying ) possums in Australia .


Flight has separately evolved at least three times on Earth: in birds, insects, and some mammals (bats). Similar external phenotypes but varying evolutionary histories account for major internal and mechanical differences, implying the recruitment of wildly different structures to build flight organs with some superficial similarities. Evolution predicts that, and that's what we observe. For Creationists, I would ask why the variation? Wouldn't a common Creator make all flying animals with a common model for flight? 

Eyes. Cephalopod eyes, vertebrate eyes, and arthropod eyes -- all very different. Why the variation?

What about dolphins? Has anybody stopped to ask themselves why there are mammals (with lungs) swimming in the ocean? Not only that, but let's make it where we have to constantly surface for air. It would be like submerging your head in the bath tub before playing a game of basketball. 'Oh sorry! Timeout, coach! I need to run inside and dunk my head in the sink or I'll die'. Why not give them gills? Oh, because they evolved from mammals, which don't have gills.

----------


## James Madison

> Interesting article here about a shark that walks instead of swims.
> 
> http://www.sci-news.com/biology/scie...sia-01335.html
> 
> So going by the theory that evolutionary change happens because the process of survival of the fittest means that creatures with a mutation that gives it a advantage over its counter part in its species, allows it too eventually become the dominant gene in the species,how does a walking shark still exist today?
> 
> Clearly a walking shark has no advantage over a swimming shark ,so theres 2 scenarios from a evolutionary standpoint.
> 
>  A. The walking shark is the original species before its species started swimming ,which one would then ask, why is it still around when it should have died out because the new mutated version that could swim should have become the dominant species since it had a advantage.
> ...


If you're going to post a link, read the damn article first. Perform a quick google search or try wikipedia.

These sharks are confined to warm, shallow waters where they feed on invertebrates and small fish. That's a good strategy for staying close to the sea floor and for evading predators.

Also, it isn't 'walking' in the literal sense. Toss this guy on the beach, and he'd flop around before suffocating.




> There are 12 organ systems within human beings:
> Integumentary systemDigestive systemCardiovascular systemLymphatic systemImmune systemRespiratory systemUrinary systemSkeletal systemMuscular systemNervous systemEndocrine systemReproductive system


You're just arguing from ignorance. Have you performed any research to answer your question? Could all of these independently evolve? Did you research the evolutionary histories of each and plot the variations in species against the passing eons? Any kind of work that would be even remotely possible to misconstrue as intellectual honesty? No?

Sounds like you started at a conclusion and then worked your way backwards, selectively choosing evidence (and I use that term lightly) that conforms to your premise, while rejecting anything that disagrees with your conclusion.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> If you're going to post a link, read the damn article first. Perform a quick google search or try wikipedia.
> 
> These sharks are confined to warm, shallow waters where they feed on invertebrates and small fish. That's a good strategy for staying close to the sea floor and for evading predators.
> 
> Also, it isn't 'walking' in the literal sense. Toss this guy on the beach, and he'd flop around before suffocating.
> 
> 
> 
> You're just arguing from ignorance. Have you performed any research to answer your question? Could all of these independently evolve? Did you research the evolutionary histories of each and plot the variations in species against the passing eons? Any kind of work that would be even remotely possible to misconstrue as intellectual honesty? No?
> ...


JM, come on, was that post really supposed to be critique or even conversation?  Sounds more like belly gowling.

----------


## otherone

> Sounds like you started at a conclusion and then worked your way backwards, selectively choosing evidence (and I use that term lightly) that conforms to your premise, while rejecting anything that disagrees with your conclusion.


But he used the word "irrefutable", thereby proving his point.
What's interesting is all of the "irrefutable" evidence of creationism can be refuted by the same argument that is derisively employed _against_ evolutionists: _"How do you know...were you there?" _

----------


## Fred the musician

Anyone who believes in creation must be blind. The evidence of evolution is so overwhelming that I am not even going to start summing them up. But I do have absolute proof that the story in Genesis 1 can't possibly be accurate: http://superurl.nl/?bible

----------


## matt0611

> Flight has separately evolved at least three times on Earth: in birds, insects, and some mammals (bats). Similar external phenotypes but varying evolutionary histories account for major internal and mechanical differences, implying the recruitment of wildly different structures to build flight organs with some superficial similarities. Evolution predicts that, and that's what we observe. For Creationists, I would ask why the variation? Wouldn't a common Creator make all flying animals with a common model for flight? 
> 
> Eyes. Cephalopod eyes, vertebrate eyes, and arthropod eyes -- all very different. Why the variation?
> 
> What about dolphins? Has anybody stopped to ask themselves why there are mammals (with lungs) swimming in the ocean? Not only that, but let's make it where we have to constantly surface for air. It would be like submerging your head in the bath tub before playing a game of basketball. 'Oh sorry! Timeout, coach! I need to run inside and dunk my head in the sink or I'll die'. Why not give them gills? Oh, because they evolved from mammals, which don't have gills.


So because some things live in the ocean have lungs and breath air this proves what? Maybe because that's how they were made. Why does every creature have to be the same just because it lives in the ocean? That would be so boring...

----------


## matt0611

> Flight has separately evolved at least three times on Earth: in birds, insects, and some mammals (bats). Similar external phenotypes but varying evolutionary histories account for major internal and mechanical differences, implying the recruitment of wildly different structures to build flight organs with some superficial similarities. Evolution predicts that, and that's what we observe. For Creationists, I would ask why the variation? Wouldn't a common Creator make all flying animals with a common model for flight? 
> 
> Eyes. Cephalopod eyes, vertebrate eyes, and arthropod eyes -- all very different. Why the variation?
> 
> What about dolphins? Has anybody stopped to ask themselves why there are mammals (with lungs) swimming in the ocean? Not only that, but let's make it where we have to constantly surface for air. It would be like submerging your head in the bath tub before playing a game of basketball. 'Oh sorry! Timeout, coach! I need to run inside and dunk my head in the sink or I'll die'. Why not give them gills? Oh, because they evolved from mammals, which don't have gills.


So because some things live in the ocean have lungs and breath air this proves what? Maybe because that's how they were made. Why does every creature have to be the same just because it lives in the ocean? That would be so boring...

----------


## acptulsa

Trashing evolution isn't defending God.  Any creator who could come up with such a brilliant system deserves all the praise it's possible to give.  Trashing evolution is merely defending the amusing fairy tale at the beginning of Genesis as 'Literal Truth', which is in my opinion a fool's errand.  Every word of the Bible does not have to be literal truth for God to be great.  It just isn't necessary.

Now, those people mainly concerned with getting into Heaven through a loophole, rather than on their merits, find it worth a whole lot of trouble to fool themselves into thinking that every word of the Bible is literal truth, because that's the stuff loopholes are made of.  But that's not necessary at all for God to be great.  Not at all.

It makes me think of someone trying to prove _The Three Little Pigs_ is literal truth because they can't handle the thought that their parents might have lied to them about it.  If a child asks a question, and you know the correct answer is much too complicated for the tyke to understand at his or her age, what do _you_ do..?

Outgrow it already.

Women favor tall men, the museums are full of armor obviously designed to fit big, tough warriors five and a half feet tall, big guys are closer to six and a half feet tall today, yet 'selection factors' cannot have an effect--we are created to be unchanging.  Or some of us were created to be blind in one eye and unable to see out of the other.  Take your pick.

----------


## matt0611

> Trashing evolution isn't defending God.  Any creator who could come up with such a brilliant system deserves all the praise it's possible to give.  Trashing evolution is merely defending the amusing fairy tale at the beginning of Genesis as 'Literal Truth', which is in my opinion a fool's errand.  Every word of the Bible does not have to be literal truth for God to be great.  It just isn't necessary.
> 
> Now, those people mainly concerned with getting into Heaven through a loophole, rather than on their merits, find it worth a whole lot of trouble to fool themselves into thinking that every word of the Bible is literal truth, because that's the stuff loopholes are made of.  But that's not necessary at all for God to be great.  Not at all.
> 
> It makes me think of someone trying to prove _The Three Little Pigs_ is literal truth because they can't handle the thought that their parents might have lied to them about it.  If a child asks a question, and you know the correct answer is much too complicated for the tyke to understand at his or her age, what do _you_ do..?
> 
> Outgrow it already.
> 
> Women favor tall men, the museums are full of armor obviously designed to fit big, tough warriors five and a half feet tall, big guys are closer to six and a half feet tall today, yet 'selection factors' cannot have an effect--we are created to be unchanging.  Or some of us were created to be blind in one eye and unable to see out of the other.  Take your pick.


1. Creationists believe in change in species over time. Including natural selection. I have no problem with even humans changing over time. But again I believe that change has limits.

2. You know that height difference today has a lot to do with our health style and diet today compared to medieval and ancient times right? Genetics are not the only factor.

3. I don't take every word of the Bible as literal truth, there are parts of the Bible that are poetry, parts that are parables, parts that use metaphors and imagery etc. But I do use a plain straight-forward reading as my interpretation for Genesis, Exodus etc. As real history. I think not doing that is very inconsistent and opens things up to much more problems and questions etc. I take the Bible as a whole as the word of God so my understanding of the past will have to be interpreted through it.

4. I still believe you can believe in evolution and go to heaven. I don't believe that's required to be a Christian. I just believe its inconsistent and incorrect.

----------


## James Madison

> JM, come on, was that post really supposed to be critique or even conversation?  Sounds more like belly gowling.


I'm tired of the wilful ignorance in this thread. I addresed their questions and provided an adequate response. 




> So because some things live in the ocean have lungs and breath air this proves what? Maybe because that's how they were made. Why does every creature have to be the same just because it lives in the ocean? That would be so boring...


Why not answer my question? How do you explain the convergent evolution I just described? And saying 'that's how they were made' is a cop-out. Evolution predicts this exact scenario; wouldn't Creationism predict the opposite?

----------


## matt0611

> I'm tired of the wilful ignorance in this thread. I addresed their questions and provided an adequate response. 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not answer my question? How do you explain the convergent evolution I just described? And saying 'that's how they were made' is a cop-out. Evolution predicts this exact scenario; wouldn't Creationism predict the opposite?


Answer what question? Why do all things have to fly in the same way? Why would an insect fly the same way as a bird? They are entirely different creatures, different sizes, difference needs, different functions etc. Why does everything have to be the same? 

If everything flew the same way or every eye was built the same you the evolutionist could just say "see! everything that has an eye came from a common ancestor so that's why they're all built exactly the same way!" 

and if dolphins didn't have lungs and breathed like fish the evolutionist could just say "see! they went back into the ocean and lost the ability to breathe air and started to breathe like fish, evolution!". 

How does this prove anything?

----------


## James Madison

> Answer what question? Why do all things have to fly in the same way? Why would an insect fly the same way as a bird? They are entirely different creatures, different sizes, difference needs, different functions etc. Why does everything have to be the same? 
> 
> If everything flew the same way or every eye was built the same you the evolutionist could just say "see! everything that has an eye came from a common ancestor so that's why they're all built exactly the same way!" 
> 
> and if dolphins didn't have lungs and breathed like fish the evolutionist could just say "see! they went back into the ocean and lost the ability to breathe air and started to breathe water,* evolution*!". 
> 
> How does this prove anything?


The scenario you described would actually be evidence against evolution, not for it. Evolution is not forward-thinking and it lacks the ability to create perfect imitations from wildly divergent species. We'd expect to see general similarities, but an exact copy would be nigh-impossible to produce.

Also, smh at 'breathing water'. If you wanna talk science you better do your homework.

----------


## matt0611

> The scenario you described would actually be evidence against evolution, not for it. Evolution is not forward-thinking and it lacks the ability to create perfect imitations from wildly divergent species. We'd expect to see general similarities, but an exact copy would be nigh-impossible to produce.


You miss the entire point, if all creatures with eyes came from ancestors that first evolved an eye then they would be basically the same design. I never said anything about evolving an exact copy over time either. 

Either way it doesn't prove a thing. and I never said evolution has "forward thinking".

If they are all the same then "they  came from the same ancestor, of course they are the same!"
If they are different then "well they evolved separately so of course they will be different!"

How is this proof of evolution again?

----------


## erowe1

> Why not answer my question? How do you explain the convergent evolution I just described? And saying 'that's how they were made' is a cop-out. Evolution predicts this exact scenario; wouldn't Creationism predict the opposite?


That's an argument against evolution, not for it. The human eye and the cephalopod eye are remarkably similar. And yet they supposedly didn't get these from a common ancestor with such an eye. So we're supposed to believe that this remarkable organ that couldn't possibly come about by evolution, actually did two different times and came out the same way both times.

The theory of evolution does not predict this. It's an embarrassment to the theory.

Your dismissing the miraculous as a cop-out would rule out the very possibility of accepting miraculous creation from the outset. You're not even willing to engage the question of whether miracles ever have happened. You just take for granted that none ever have. You're not looking for the truth, you're playing a game.

----------


## mczerone

> That's an argument against evolution, not for it. The human eye and the cephalopod eye are remarkably similar. And yet they supposedly didn't get these from a common ancestor with such an eye. So we're supposed to believe that this remarkable organ *that couldn't possibly come about by evolution,* actually did two different times and came out the same way both times.
> 
> *The theory of evolution does not predict this.* It's an embarrassment to the theory.
> 
> Your dismissing the miraculous as a cop-out would rule out the very possibility of accepting miraculous creation from the outset. You're not even willing to engage the question of whether miracles ever have happened. *You just take for granted that none ever have.* *You're not looking for the truth, you're playing a game.*


You're assuming the consequent.

You're falsely attributing a conclusion to the opposing viewpoint.

You're painting a straw-man that "looking for natural solutions" == "assuming everything is natural/non-miraculous"

And finally, you're also not _looking_ for truth, you're playing a game that says that "everything I currently know from biblical scholars is the truth and I'm prepared to reject or ignore any evidence to the contrary."

----------


## erowe1

> You're assuming the consequent.
> 
> You're falsely attributing a conclusion to the opposing viewpoint.
> 
> You're painting a straw-man that "looking for natural solutions" == "assuming everything is natural/non-miraculous"."


It's not a straw man.

To say that appeal to the miraculous is a cop out implies that you have to explain it without appeal to the miraculous. But that's only valid if no miracle has ever happened.

In fact, any assertion that we can determine what happened in the past, going as far back in time as we want ad infinitum, by extrapolating backwards the repetetive processes that we observe today, must presuppose that no miracle has ever happened.




> And finally, you're also not _looking_ for truth, you're playing a game that says that "everything I currently know from biblical scholars is the truth and I'm prepared to reject or ignore any evidence to the contrary


What do you base this on?

----------


## Theocrat

> You're just arguing from ignorance. Have you performed any research to answer your question? Could all of these independently evolve? Did you research the evolutionary histories of each and plot the variations in species against the passing eons? Any kind of work that would be even remotely possible to misconstrue as intellectual honesty? No?
> 
> Sounds like you started at a conclusion and then worked your way backwards, selectively choosing evidence (and I use that term lightly) that conforms to your premise, while rejecting anything that disagrees with your conclusion.


I don't need to research the evolutionary histories of each organ system because that is not the assumption that I start with when I study human organ systems. As a matter of fact, the organ systems, themselves, are self-evident that they are intelligently and purposefully created by God, due to the impossibility of the contrary. There is no way that random mutations over millions of years can develop entire, complex organ systems with the functional capabilities and structural features that we observe in the study of anatomy and physiology. It is asinine to suggest that a random process can do such a thing. It's similar to a person who looks at a computer and postulates that it could have formed itself over hundreds of years in a computer warehouse.

So, no, I don't need to figure out how evolution explains human organ systems because there is no reason to suggest that our organ systems are the results of random mutations by means of natural selection over millions of years. We don't ever observe such a phenomenon in nature, and therefore, we have no evidence of it. Essentially, what you are doing is shifting the burden of proof. It's not my job to show how evolution formed human organ systems. That is the job of the evolutionists who would believe in such nonsense. And that is my challenge to any evolutionist on these forums. Human organ systems defy evolutionism. Period.

----------


## otherone

> It's similar to a person who looks at a computer and postulates that it could have formed itself over hundreds of years in a computer warehouse.


Hmmm...
I'm certain there are some people who look at a computer and due to it's complexity, and lack of observable evidence to the contrary, postulate that it could have only been formed by a bronze age deity.

----------


## erowe1

> Hmmm...
> I'm certain there are some people who look at a computer and due to it's complexity, and lack of observable evidence to the contrary, postulate that it could have only been formed by a bronze age deity.


What is the purpose of including the phrase "bronze age" there?

----------


## robert9712000

> If you're going to post a link, read the damn article first. Perform a quick google search or try wikipedia.
> 
> These sharks are confined to warm, shallow waters where they feed on invertebrates and small fish. That's a good strategy for staying close to the sea floor and for evading predators.
> 
> Also, it isn't 'walking' in the literal sense. Toss this guy on the beach, and he'd flop around before suffocating.
> 
> 
> 
> You're just arguing from ignorance. Have you performed any research to answer your question? Could all of these independently evolve? Did you research the evolutionary histories of each and plot the variations in species against the passing eons? Any kind of work that would be even remotely possible to misconstrue as intellectual honesty? No?
> ...


Im not arguing from ignorance.I do though have preformed opinions about the origins of life just like you do.I am looking for logical answers to how the concepts work,not the scientific evidences.

Think of it like someone trying to explain to you how a car works,he doesnt care about the science behind ratio of fuel and oxygen needed to create combustion,he wants to know that the fuel explodes from a spark plug which moves a piston which in turn moves the transmission and drive shaft thus turning the wheels.

My point in posting about the walking shark is to beg the question of which you never answered directly, *Does the process of evolutionary change require the process of survival of the fittest to progress?*

In my earlier post i stated how a genetic change has a 25% chance to be passed on to kin as a dominant gene and a 50% chance to be passed on as a carrier.If the mutated creature has children at the same rate as his counter species(ie brothers and sisters), then it is statistically impossible for the mutated gene to overtake the regular gene in the population unless it is a mutation which gives it a advantage and thus able to better survive to pass on its gene pool thus giving it the needed edge to outpace the unmutated segment of the population to eventually become the dominant gene.

*So taking that understanding i now go back to the previous question that, can the process of evolutionary change happen without the advantage of survival of the fittest?*

If it can not, then the logical question would be how can evolutionary change happen if it does not give it a advantage in survival?

 Im asking questions about the basic root idea of what drives the evolutionary process.If my understanding is wrong then explain how?Im not choosing evidence,im trying to logically reason out how the concept of the evolutionary process works and what drives it.

----------


## otherone

> *So taking that understanding i now go back to the previous question that, can the process of evolutionary change happen without the advantage of survival of the fittest?*


This has been asked and answered previously in this thread.  The answer is "not necessarily".  The expression, "survival of the fittest", is a soundbite that simplifies the concept of natural selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
_Natural selection is the gradual natural process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, which is now called selective breeding.

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations occur in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants. Therefore the population evolves. Factors that affect reproductive success are also important, an issue that Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection, for example. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms. Natural selection can be contrasted with artificial selection, in which humans intentionally choose specific traits (although they may not always get what they want). In natural selection there is no intentional choice. In other words, artificial selection is teleological and natural selection is not teleological._

----------


## robert9712000

> Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (*though not the only process*) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.


So ive done some looking into it,but granted ive just started,but the only other driving factor to evolution that people keep suggesting is genetic drift.I found a article here

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.Uhvtcn_b0yU

 A line that appears to be a cop-out though is "Although the likelihood of any neutral mutation spreading by chance is tiny, the enormous number of mutations in each generation makes genetic drift a significant force."

 That makes no sense,because its basically saying that genetic drift which they state "It is pure chance - some just happen to be passed on to more and more individuals in each generation.", may allow some neutral mutations to overcome its miniscule statistical chance by sheer volume and become prevalent.That explains one neutral mutation becoming a dominant gene, but using that concept to suggest that complete randomness could lead to a orderly complex being such as humans where individual organs work together seems statistically impossible.

 They use the example of the lottery to explain how sheer volume can overcome the statistical odds ,but that would be for just one neutral mutation to overcome statistical odds and become the dominant gene.They go on to say though that most of the changes in complex organisms are due to genetic drift.




> They suggest though that there are alot of changes that are of no beneficial consequence to reproduction rate and thus they conclude its a result of genetic drift.
> *As a result, most changes in the DNA of complex organisms over time are due to drift rather than selection*, which is why biologists focus on sequences that are similar, or conserved, when they compare genomes. Natural selection will preserve sequences with vital functions, but the rest of the genome will change because of drift.


So with the complexity of humans that would be like winning the lottery a million times

----------


## otherone

> What is the purpose of including the phrase "bronze age" there?


When was Yahweh first written about?

----------


## Fred the musician

Here's something:
Birds don't have teeth. But they do have genes that cause the growth of teeth, but these genes are dormant. If all animals were created as they are now, why put these useless genes into them?
If you x-ray a snake you'll see the remainder of legs on the skeleton. Why would they be there?

Now THAT is proof of evolution.

Besides, nobody replied to my previous post where I proved that the biblical story of creation is nonsense.

----------


## willwash

Didn't read whole thread so not sure if this has already been posted but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

They will create an environment in the software with certain attributes and a bunch of artificial organisms that reproduce.  They were coded to have a random chance of mutating some random aspect of their makeup.  One that I read about had a "light" source, where the better the organisms were able to detect the light, the better their chance of reproduction.  Then they let the simulation run on a supercomputer--millions and billions of generations in the course of lunch hour.  When they came back the organisms had evolved eyes.  Yes, actual eyes.  I'll do some digging and see if I can find the description

EDIT:  OK, I found that reference, it's from a book in my Kindle.  I'm not sure how to copy and paste, but you basically have to read the better part of the chapter anyway to understand everything anyway.

For those interested, this book is called "Darwin's Unfinished Business" and what I'm talking about is in chapter 6.

----------


## Theocrat

> Didn't read whole thread so not sure if this has already been posted but:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm
> 
> They will create an environment in the software with certain attributes and a bunch of artificial organisms that reproduce.  They were coded to have a random chance of mutating some random aspect of their makeup.  One that I read about had a "light" source, where the better the organisms were able to detect the light, the better their chance of reproduction.  Then they let the simulation run on a supercomputer--millions and billions of generations in the course of lunch hour.  When they came back the organisms had evolved eyes.  Yes, actual eyes.  I'll do some digging and see if I can find the description
> 
> EDIT:  OK, I found that reference, it's from a book in my Kindle.  I'm not sure how to copy and paste, but you basically have to read the better part of the chapter anyway to understand everything anyway.
> 
> For those interested, this book is called "Darwin's Unfinished Business" and what I'm talking about is in chapter 6.


*Who* developed the evolutionary algorithm?

----------


## robert9712000

> Here's something:
> Birds don't have teeth. But they do have genes that cause the growth of teeth, but these genes are dormant. If all animals were created as they are now, why put these useless genes into them?
> If you x-ray a snake you'll see the remainder of legs on the skeleton. Why would they be there?
> 
> Now THAT is proof of evolution.
> 
> Besides, nobody replied to my previous post where I proved that the biblical story of creation is nonsense.


I know you won't accept this,but this might be the reason God would create a gene like your saying

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
*27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;* and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, *hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.*

----------


## Fred the musician

If you think the writings of primitive people can convince me of anything, you're wrong... and stupid because I just proved that the bible is a lot of nonsense.

Over the last centuries the churches argued with scientists many, many times. One example: the church taught us that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Every single time the church was proven wrong. So why would that be different now?

----------


## Saint Vitus

Browsing new posts, I see threads about how atheists are smug douchebags, about how evolution doesn't make sense, and how mrryh is leaking out of icons.  I didn't realize I stumbled onto the 700 club forums.  Am I going to have to start making threads about weed and hookers to balance things out on here?

----------


## erowe1

> the church taught us that the earth was flat


What's your basis for this claim?

----------


## erowe1

> Browsing new posts, I see threads about how atheists are smug douchebags, about how evolution doesn't make sense, and how mrryh is leaking out of icons.  I didn't realize I stumbled onto the 700 club forums.  Am I going to have to start making threads about weed and hookers to balance things out on here?


Dondero?

----------


## Fred the musician

> What's your basis for this claim?


Learn your history lessons again please. This is generally known in Europe, where children actually LEARN something at school.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I know you won't accept this,but this might be the reason God would create a gene like your saying
> 
> 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
> 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
> *27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;* and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
> 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, *hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
> 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.*



That verse has nothing to do with creation.  That verse is talking about election and predestination.

----------


## erowe1

> Learn your history lessons again please. This is generally known in Europe, where children actually LEARN something at school.


Sometimes something that's supposedly generally known actually isn't true.

Do you have any evidence for the claim? Or do you just believe it because you think lots of other people do?

----------


## Fred the musician

> Sometimes something that's supposedly generally known actually isn't true.
> 
> Do you have any evidence for the claim? Or do you just believe it because you think lots of other people do?


Yes I do. Google "Spanish inquisition" or "Galileo Galilei"... or both.

General knowledge needn't be true. No, you're right. 1+1=2? Can you prove it?

----------


## erowe1

> Yes I do. Google "Spanish inquisition" or "Galileo Galilei"... or both.
> 
> General knowledge needn't be true. No, you're right. 1+1=2? Can you prove it?


So you're saying you don't know of any evidence at all that the Church ever taught the earth was flat?

I don't see how this relates to the Spanish Inquisition or Galileo.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [...] the church taught us that the earth was flat [...]


No it didn't.

FTA: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/07/t...at-earth-myth/



> *The Flat Earth Myth*
> 
> [...] After all, didn’t the Church teach that the world was flat?
> 
> Actually, no. Essentially no one during the Middle Ages  believed the world was flat. Of the many myths about the Middle Ages  this one is perhaps the most widespread, and yet at the same time the  most roundly and authoritatively debunked.
> 
> In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that refuting this myth is like refuting the idea that the moon is made of cheese.
> 
> [...]


Much more at link.

----------


## Fred the musician

Christopher Columbus was the first person ever, convinced enough of a round earth, that he was willing to prove it by sailing west to India. He could not find any men to go with him because everyone was convinced they would fall off the earth if they reached the end. Therefore prisoners were assigned to him.

The belief that the earth was flat led to the discovery of America. How ignorant can you be!!!

By the time America was founded, the flat earth dogma was gone. And (obviously) Americans think "if it never happened in America, it never happened".

----------


## Scrapmo

> Christopher Columbus was the first person ever, convinced enough of a round earth, that he was willing to prove it by sailing west to India. He could not find any men to go with him because everyone was convinced they would fall off the earth if they reached the end. Therefore prisoners were assigned to him.
> 
> The belief that the earth was flat led to the discovery of America. How ignorant can you be!!!
> 
> By the time America was founded, the flat earth dogma was gone. And (obviously) Americans think "if it never happened in America, it never happened".


Neg rep for being purposefully obtuse and willfully ignorant. There is literally no truth in your post. Since Pythagoras, in the 6th century B.C., proved the earth was round, very few scientists in the western world had questioned this fact. By the time Columbus sailed in 1492 it was a given. He did not sail to prove the earth was round. He believed sailing west to India would be quicker then sailing east. 

I cant tell if you are trolling or if your really this dense.

----------


## erowe1

> Christopher Columbus was the first person ever, convinced enough of a round earth, that he was willing to prove it by sailing west to India. He could not find any men to go with him because everyone was convinced they would fall off the earth if they reached the end. Therefore prisoners were assigned to him.
> 
> The belief that the earth was flat led to the discovery of America. How ignorant can you be!!!
> 
> By the time America was founded, the flat earth dogma was gone. And (obviously) Americans think "if it never happened in America, it never happened".


That's a myth. It was common knowledge for many centuries before Columbus that the earth was round.

Furthermore, Galileo was more than a century LATER than Columbus, and many decades later than Magellan's circumnavigation.

If you really are so confident in what you're saying, why are you having so much trouble finding even a scrap of evidence for it?

----------


## Fred the musician

Galileo Galilei challenged another dogma: he said the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice versa, and he said that the moon didn't produce light but merely reflected it.
That's why I mentioned him: dogmas, dogmas and more dogmas that the church taught us but which were not true.

----------


## Fred the musician

Mark Twain said: "It's much easier to fool people than to convince them that they were fooled". And he was right. Only people living in the infamous bible belt (which exists both in Europe and America) still believe the biblical creation story.
A few posts ago I proved beyond doubt that the story in genesis 1 can't possibly be accurate.
By the way, I attended both public and christian schools, but although christian school still taught creation, they admitted that the church had been wrong several times (flat earth & sun revolving around the earth).

----------


## erowe1

> By the way, I attended both public and christian schools, but although christian school still taught creation, they admitted that the church had been wrong several times (flat earth & sun revolving around the earth).


You went to a Christian school that taught that the Church used to believe in a flat earth?

Did they back that up with any evidence?

----------


## otherone

> You went to a Christian school that taught that the Church used to believe in a flat earth?
> 
> Did they back that up with any evidence?


Why would a Christian school need to provide any evidence other than having it written in some book?

----------


## erowe1

> Why would a Christian school need to provide any evidence other than having it written in some book?


If it's written in some book that the Church used to believe in a flat earth, I'd like to know what book.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> Galileo Galilei challenged another dogma: he said the earth revolved around the sun instead of vice versa....


So what do you think; does the Earth revolve around the Sun, or does the Sun revolve around the Earth?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Christopher Columbus was the first person ever, convinced enough of a round earth, that he was willing to prove it by sailing west to India. He could not find any men to go with him because everyone was convinced they would fall off the earth if they reached the end. Therefore prisoners were assigned to him.
> 
> The belief that the earth was flat led to the discovery of America. How ignorant can you be!!!


This is complete and utter bull$#@!. If you really believe this, then YOU are the ignoramus.

Everyone knew that the Earth was  round. Especially sailors. (They could see the proof with their own eyes every time another ship, a lighthouse or land came into view over the horizon - from the top down.)

What set Columbus apart from others was his (erroneous) conviction that the circumference of the Earth was  much smaller (by about 6,000 miles) than what everyone else thought it was. THAT is why sailors were  afraid of trying to sail west from Europe in order to reach Asia. Everyone thought that it was so far away that it was impossible to  make the trip (by sailing west) without running out of food and water long before  reaching Asia. But Columbus was wrong - he thought that the circumference of the Earth was only about three-fourths of what it actually was - and that Asia was close enough to reach. What no one knew was that there were two large continents between Europe and Asia - namely, North and South America. That fact is probably the only thing that saved the lives of Columbus and the crews of his ships. Columbus died thinking that he had found a new route to Asia - never knowing that the had in fact discovered a "New World."

FTA: Top 5 Misconceptions About Columbus [emphasis added]
http://www.livescience.com/16468-chr...-americas.html



> *1. Columbus set out to prove the world was round.*
> 
> If he did, he was about 2,000 years too late. Ancient Greek mathematicians  had already proven that the Earth was round, not flat. Pythagoras in  the sixth century B.C.E. was one of the originators of the idea.  Aristotle in the fourth century B.C.E. provided the physical evidence,  such as the shadow of the Earth on the moon and *the curvature of the  Earth known by all sailors approaching land*. And by the third century  B.C.E., Eratosthenes determined the Earth's shape and circumference  using basic geometry. In the second century C.E., Claudius Ptolemy wrote  the "Almagest," the mathematical and astronomical treatise on planetary  shapes and motions, describing the spherical Earth. This text was well  known throughout educated Europe in Columbus' time. [Related: Earth Is Flat in Many People's Minds]
> 
> Columbus, a self-taught man, greatly underestimated the Earth's circumference.  He also thought Europe was wider than it actually was and that Japan  was farther from the coast of China than it really was. For these  reasons, he figured he could reach Asia by going west, a concept that  most of educated Europe at the time thought was daft — not because the  Earth was flat, but because Columbus' math was so wrong. Columbus, in  effect, got lucky by bumping into land that, of course, wasn't Asia.
> 
> The Columbus flat-earth myth perhaps originated with Washington  Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus; there's no mention of this before  that. *His crew wasn't nervous about falling off the Earth.*

----------


## Fred the musician

I did some research... Very interesting, because many websites say how this "flat earth myth" came into existance. I have some ideas on how this myth might not be a myth, but due to lack of evidence I'll drop the subject of round/flat earth.

But... I did find documents proving that Galileo Galilei had a quarrel with the church when he said that the earth revolved around the sun, while the church said that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo Galilei also said that the moon didn't give light; it only reflected sunlight.
So of the 3 dogmas that I mentioned before, only 2 remain... and in both cases the church was proven wrong.

So here we are where we left the original subject: scientists vs church. If the dogma were correct (all animals created at the same time) then how is it possible that the fossiles in the different earth layers prove otherwise? I mean: if humans were created when the earth was 6 days old, we should be able to find human fossiles in the layer where we really find animals that were extinct before man evolved.
Also, if the universe were only 6000 years old (give or take a few hundred years) as creationists believe, then how can we see stars that are 10000 lightyears away from us? Their first light shouldn't have reached us yet.

----------


## erowe1

> I did some research... Very interesting, because many websites say how this "flat earth myth" came into existance. I have some ideas on how this myth might not be a myth, but due to lack of evidence I'll drop the subject of round/flat earth.
> 
> But... I did find documents proving that Galileo Galilei had a quarrel with the church when he said that the earth revolved around the sun, while the church said that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo Galilei also said that the moon didn't give light; it only reflected sunlight.
> So of the 3 dogmas that I mentioned before, only 2 remain... and in both cases the church was proven wrong.


So after all that derision of people who questioned you to back up your story about the Church saying the earth was flat, saying that it was common knowledge, and everyone in Europe knew it, and we were just dumb Americans, and so on, this is it? That specific question of the church teaching a flat earth was the precise question people challenged you on. Nothing else. And that specific question, and only it, was your basis for talking down to people.

And then you try to turn around and bring up Galileo vs. the Church on heliocentrism, which actually is something that all educated people are already familiar with, as if you just now found out about it.

You're not ready for this discussion yet.

----------


## Fred the musician

So just because I brought up 3 dogmas of which 1 was common knowledge when I went to school but seems(!) to be nonexistant, after which 2 dogmas stay up as part of the discussion, you say I'm not ready for the discussion yet?

First of all no one ever replied to the post in which I placed a link to a movie that proves beyond doubt that the bible is NOT an accurate history book. Some people claim that it must contain the pure truth because it was written by God... well, it wasn't. It was written by primitive people who didn't know anything about science and therefore wrote down a lot of bull$#@!. Prove is presented if you dare to click the link.
 But no, either you didn't click the link because you didn't want to risk having to admit you're wrong, or you watched the movie and decided to pretend you didn't or else you would have to admit you're wrong.

 The fact that the movie was ignored by all of you, gave me the right to call you ignorant.

----------


## Scrapmo

_"concerning upstarts_: We don't care to eat toadstools that think they are truffles."
-Mark Twain

----------


## erowe1

> So just because I brought up 3 dogmas of which 1 was common knowledge when I went to school but seems(!) to be nonexistant, after which 2 dogmas stay up as part of the discussion, you say I'm not ready for the discussion yet?
> 
> First of all no one ever replied to the post in which I placed a link to a movie that proves beyond doubt that the bible is NOT an accurate history book. Some people claim that it must contain the pure truth because it was written by God... well, it wasn't. It was written by primitive people who didn't know anything about science and therefore wrote down a lot of bull$#@!. Prove is presented if you dare to click the link.
>  But no, either you didn't click the link because you didn't want to risk having to admit you're wrong, or you watched the movie and decided to pretend you didn't or else you would have to admit you're wrong.
> 
>  The fact that the movie was ignored by all of you, gave me the right to call you ignorant.


You had a chance to prove you weren't an idiot. Don't expect people to trust your judgment on what qualifies as a convincing movie after you failed that test.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I did some research... Very interesting, because many websites say how this "flat earth myth" came into existance. I have some ideas on how this myth might not be a myth, but due to lack of evidence I'll drop the subject of round/flat earth.


I provided a link to an article in which historian Tom Woods describes in detail "how this 'flat earth myth' came into existence" (see post #163).




> The fact that the movie was ignored by  all of you, gave me the right to call you ignorant.


So since you ignored the Tom Woods article, what does that give others the right to call you?




> But... I did find documents proving that Galileo Galilei had a quarrel with the church when he said that the earth revolved around the sun, while the church said that the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo Galilei also said that the moon didn't give light; it only reflected sunlight.
> So of the 3 dogmas that I mentioned before, only 2 remain... and in both cases the church was proven wrong.


The basis of the quarrel between Galileo and the Church was NOT just that "the Earth revolves around the Sun." That issue was being openly discussed and debated by a LOT of other people - not just Galileo. It was the (non-"scientific") theological suggestions and implications that Galileo seemed to make or suggest that got him into trouble with the Church. Galileo (intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly) called into question the validity of some Church doctrines on the basis of his discovery. THAT is what the Church went after him for (in addition to Vatican court politics) - NOT the discovery itself.

If Galileo had been more circumspect in his theological ruminations and/or more adroit in his rhetoric (for example, by not seeming to make mock of Pope Urban VIII by putting the Pope's words into the mouth of foolish Simplicio in the _Two Dialogues_), the whole "Galileo vs. the Church" incident would likely have never happened. Heliocentrism would have been argued over by astronomers and scientists - and, yes, even churchmen (and note that in many cases, the astronomers and scientists involved actually were priests & churchmen) - and eventually incorporated into Chuch doctrine (just as it eventually was). There were plenty of churchmen who were perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that the Earth might not be the center of the universe (including the Roman Inquisition itself - see below). For example, Cardinal Ceasar Baronius, an acquaintance of Galileo, said, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." (This quote is often falsely attributed to Galileo himself - after all, we can't allow it to look like priests are capable of being reasonable, now, can we?)

FTA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Baronius



> [Cardinal Ceasar Baronius] is also known for saying, in the context of the controversies about the work of Copernicus and Galileo, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." This remark, which Baronius probably made in conversation with Galileo, was cited by [Galileo] in his _Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina_ (1615).


FTA (emphasis mine): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo



> Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax. *The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could be supported as only a possibility, not an established fact*. Galileo later defended his views in _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_, which appeared to attack* Pope Urban VIII* and thus alienated him* and the Jesuits,* who *had both supported Galileo up until this point.*





> So just because I brought up 3 dogmas of which 1 was common knowledge when I went to school but seems(!) to be nonexistant, after which 2 dogmas stay up as part of the discussion, you say I'm not ready for the discussion yet?


They were NOT common "knowledge" - they were (and still are) common "anti-religion propaganda & indoctrination talking points." The other two "dogmas" you talk about are nothing more than grossly over-simplified caricatures of what the whole Galileo controversy was really about. Although the situation with Galileo is more complex - because (among many other things having nothing to do with "science" _per se_, such as politics) he actually was made to explicitly renounce heliocentrism - in the end, it is really NO different than the "Chuch said the Earth was flat" bull$#@! that so many ignoramuses swallow hook, line & sinker (without ever wondering if it might not actually be as simple as that).

If you want to criticize the Church because it went after Galileo for his perceived philosophical/theological deviations or his rhetorical clumsiness or Vatican politics, that's fine. I'd be with you on that. But those who ignorantly misrepresent the situation as the Church going after Galileo merely because of his empirical/physical observations and theories (and nothing else) are just regurgitating anti-religion talking points that are no more valid than the "Earth is flat" nonsense.

IOW: If you think that merely chanting "Flat Earth" or "Galileo" somehow proves your thesis, then you are NOT, in fact, "ready for the discussion yet" ...

Important Note For The Record: I am NOT a religionist. I reject (so-called) theism, atheism and agnosticism. I am an igtheist/ignostic/theological non-congnitivist. I have zero interest in either defending or attacking religion in and of itself. But I also have zero patience with people (almost always atheists) who imagine themselves to be rational and well-informed who nonetheless prattle about "Christians believed the Earth was flat" or "the Church persecuted Galileo merely because of his scientific theories." People who uncritically spout such ignorant and uneducated nonsense - for NO other reason than the fact that that is the propaganda they have been indoctrinated with - have NO business trying to claim the mantle of reason or rationality or "science" or what-have-you.

----------


## Fred the musician

Very well then... Here is proof that the story in genesis 1 can't possibly be true:

*There is no sound in a vacuum.*

 Vacuum? Yes, because according to genesis the sun was created after the earth. So up to that moment there were temperatures close to zero Kelvin, meaning that even hydrogen was liquid. So it was impossible to say "let there be light". Conclusion: the "water" over which the spirit of God is hovering (genesis 1:2) is not really H2O (because that's ice) but liquid oxygene, liquid nitrogen etc.

Here's another one:

*The dinosaurs lived less than a day.*

According to genesis, the first land animals were created on the sixth day. Man was created by the end of the sixth day. But by that time the dinosaurs were extinct.

And last but not least: I didn't "just chant" things. I made a point. The point is: time after time when science and church collided, the church lost. So why should that be different this time?

----------


## robert9712000

> Very well then... Here is proof that the story in genesis 1 can't possibly be true:
> 
> *There is no sound in a vacuum.*
> 
>  Vacuum? Yes, because according to genesis the sun was created after the earth. So up to that moment there were temperatures close to zero Kelvin, meaning that even hydrogen was liquid. So it was impossible to say "let there be light". Conclusion: the "water" over which the spirit of God is hovering (genesis 1:2) is not really H2O (because that's ice) but liquid oxygene, liquid nitrogen etc.
> 
> Here's another one:
> 
> *The dinosaurs lived less than a day.*
> ...



you make alot of assumptions.If God was able to create the universe i think hed also be able to establish and change physical laws at his will.He wouldnt be bound by any scientific law if he created it.How do you know dinosaurs were gone by the time man was created,didnt Job talk about great leviathan's that could swallow up a river when it drank.

----------


## Scrapmo

Clear signs of youth. Unflappable self assuredness, painfully under researched opinions and incoherent, inarticulate proofs. You do not possess even an elementary understanding of theology, history or the science of which you speak. 

As has been said you are woefully unprepared to even begin this debate. You should be laying the foundation of your knowledge before establishing your rhetoric.You are just not ready yet. Ask questions, read some literature from the best authors that both sides have to offer, then ask more questions. Think, ruminate, meditate, reevaluate everything you have ever thought or believed, do it all again... then ask more questions. Once you have it "all figured out" self reflect, realize that you do not, then read some more literature and ask more questions.

Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant at this point. The issue is that it is apparent that you have arrived to your conclusions by complete accident. It is a worthwhile and mutually beneficial educational experience to debate with someone who has developed his/her worldviews from years of study, research and self reflection. 
It is a monumental waste of time to debate with someone who has not attempted to understand what he believes, why he believes and has put in the hours of study to defend that belief, regardless if he is right or wrong.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Very well then... Here is proof that the story in genesis 1 can't possibly be true: [snip]


*shrug* I am not a Christian - let alone a Biblical literalist - so you will have to argue your "proof" on this Genesis issue with someone else. I will but note that not all Christians are Biblical literalists - so even if your proof bears out, it will have addressed the beliefs of only a particular subset of Christians. (Of course, there are some literalist Christians who might say that non-literalist Christians are not "really" Christians at all - but that is yet another hunt in which I have no dog.)




> And last but not least: I didn't "just chant" things. I made a point. The point is: time after time when science and church collided, the church lost. So why should that be different this time?


Your "point" (as you actually made it) was based on commonly-peddled anti-religion propaganda falsehoods (namely,  that "Christians believed the Earth is flat" and that "the Church  persecuted Galileo solely because of his empirical observations &  physical/non-theological theories"), The Church did NOT "lose" on those  "points" because those "points" are false (e.g., the Church did NOT "lose" on the "Earth is flat" issue because it never believed that the Earth is flat). Those "points" are outright lies (in the case of the "Flat Earth" issue) or dishonestly grotesque oversimplifications (in the case of the Galileo controversy).

You uncritically regurgitated the anti-religion "dogma" that you have admitted you were taught in school. You did not stop to wonder about it or question it - or try to find out for yourself if any of it was actually true. You just repeated it out of "blind faith" because that is what you have been indoctrinated with by some "authority." This is all very ironic, given that these are the very kinds of things that religionists are so frequently accused of by non-religionists. This is one of my pet peeves with a lot of atheists (those who go out of their way to criticize religion) - many religious types at least openly acknowledge the role that "blind faith" and "acceptance of dogmatic authority" plays in their beliefs.

----------


## Fred the musician

@Scrapmo: Youth??? I'm 56 years old! I know more about this subject than most of you.
Your last sentence is correct: it's no use debating with you. I've been on this subject since I was 12; that's 44 years. I've heard all the nonsense about a 6 day creation before, so I have my reply ready in seconds.

And here's something about the flat earth dogma again...
I found a short story in Dutch on the  internet. Here is the translation (might not be perfect English because  the translation was made by Google Translate and I may have overlooked  an error or two):




> A POWERFUL MAN
> 
> Once upon a time there was a  king who was colorblind ... he could not distinguish red from green.  But the problem was, he did not know that himself. One day there was a  new law that stated that there was no difference between red and green,  so there shouldn't be more than two different words for it. Of course  the people ignored it. Red was red and green was green; everyone saw the  difference so they refused to pretend there was no red or no green. The  king roared with anger when he heard that . So he issued a law: anyone  who now claimed that red was not the same as green, was thrown into  prison without trial.
> Of course that didn't work either. The truth  was the truth and the people knew that the king was wrong. Sometimes  someone had the courage to tell the king about his mistake, but no one  ever heard from them again. In a cell below the royal palace prisoners  usually didn't live long. Most died within one month from malnutrition,  and of not, some contagious disease did the job. How many people ended  up in jail through history... nobody knew. But something like this  couldn't last forever, of course.
> A doctor succeeded in producing two  pensils which were exactly as bright but one was red and the other was  green. He could see the difference but the king couldn't. Then the king  was challenged to draw as many crisscrossed lines as he could on  a  piece of paper with the green pencil. After that he was told to use the  red pencil, drawing lines representing a clear figure or letter. The  doctor saw what the king had drawn and there was the evidence: the king  was colorblind.
> Needless to say, the law about red and green was abolished.
> 
> Many  years passed. But then suddenly .... One day little Nick came home  after school and said that they had talked about colorblindness at  school. Grandpa said that the former king was colorblind. Colorblind???  The boy didn't believe a word of that. Grandpa began to wonder if Nick  ever attended history lessons at school ... or would he be so bad at  history? Grandpa decided to find it on the internet so that he could  show it to his grandson! But search after search resulted in less than  nothing. Less than nothing? Yes, because he found no documents  indicating that the king had the habit of throwing people in jail when  they claimed that red and green were not the same. Instead he found  several websites with the topic "how did the red / green myth arise?"
> Myth???  Grandpa knew what he knew, and that was not what those websites wanted  him to believe! It was clear: the king, powerful as he was, could easily  make sure that there was no tangible evidence of the blunder he had  ever made. The truth had been carefully erased ...
> ...

----------


## erowe1

> And here's something about the flat earth dogma again...
> I found a short story in Dutch on the  internet. Here is the translation (might not be perfect English because  the translation was made by Google Translate and I may have overlooked  an error or two):


Are you still on that?

If you think it's true, just produce the evidence. It's that simple.

----------


## Fred the musician

Here is the last thing I'll say about this:


HAHAHAHA!!!

There is a series of movies on Youtube called "why people laugh at creationists". Each of these movies show the nonsense that creationists believe in. The last line is invariably: "Why do people laugh at creationists? Only creationists don't understand why."

That's the last thing I'll say about this subject.

----------


## Scrapmo

> @Scrapmo: Youth??? I'm 56 years old! I know more about this subject than most of you.
> Your last sentence is correct: it's no use debating with you. I've been on this subject since I was 12; that's 44 years. I've heard all the nonsense about a 6 day creation before, so I have my reply ready in seconds.


I highly doubt your 56, by evidence of your tenuous grasp of the subject, logic, written language and lack of maturity. If you are as old as you say then you have lived a long, laughable life of ignorance and poor reasoning, being lead by the nose from the time the first eloquent speaker you happened across told you what opinion you should hold about the universe. 

I highly doubt your 44 years of study as you do not understand the basic premises of your own world view, let alone your opposition. My M.S. in biology and B.S. in Chemistry has given me much exposure to this debate. The one constant in that time has been that the ignorant always expose themselves quickly. Youtube videos and copy and pasted short stories, in lieu of an argument, has exposed your intellectual laziness. 

When I was teaching, I became adept at recognizing the difference between a student who has "done their homework" and someone who has reworded some more intelligent persons work. I conclude most confidently that you are not 56 and you have not been studying this for 44 years. If so, your definition of study must mean to only seek out materials which demonizes the opposition, whether true or not. You are no different then Republicans or Democrats who only seek and give credence to talking points and spin that favors their "team"   

I never advocated anything in this thread except honest research and truth seeking, which in my experience in the years I spent in Academia, very VERY few people actually do, Atheists and creationists alike. 

From your responses Im pretty certain your a teeny bopper troll.

----------

