I think its important to bring this point back up: Its obvious who here has or doesn't have a sound background of study in evolution, because its always funny when posters say "There is no evidence of evolution occurring"
Tell that to scientists who use optimality models.
Full Version: Scientific Evidence of Creationism
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
QUOTE
If I recall, Creationism is a religious belief. A BELIEF, correct? A belief that a deity created the world, universe, and man in his own image. There is no , absolutely - no evidence that a deity snapped his fingers and here we are? It is humorous, because if you say you have scientific evidence of creationism, you have scientific evidence of "God". Where is your so called evidence that "God" exists?
Did you go to heaven and take a picture of you and "God", while holding an issue of MADD magazine?
Did you go to heaven and take a picture of you and "God", while holding an issue of MADD magazine?
Welcome to the weird world of the Spirituality vs Skepticism forum!
However, you are kind of wrong.
Creationism is the belief that the standard theory of Evolution is wrong. The majority of Creationists accept the Fact of Evolution, IE- they believe Evolution happens. However, none believe that the theory of Evolution and natural origins of the world are responsible for life today.
Here, we simply try and persuade them that the evidence points that the commonly accepted Theory of Evolution is indeed correct.
In this PARTICULAR thread, the point is for Creationists to give evidence that either:
A. Demonstrates a part of life that couldn't evolve.
B. OFfers an argument against Evolution.
C. Offers an argument for a young earth.
D. Offers an argument for a God.
or a bunch of like stuff.
This reminds me of how diverse UM actually is- We've got the Cryptology people, the Spirituality people, the Science people, and probably mostly, the conspiracy people.
When I first joined UM a few years back, I had a completely different account, and upon just revisiting that account, I realized I hadn't more then a single post in the Spirituality, or Spirt vs. Skep. section! I found this so ironic, because almost all my posts today are in here. However, I do suppose that I abandoned UM and that account 1-2 years ago, which can be a pretty long time...
QUOTE
If I collected all of the posts that you've put into my threads alone they would make for a very thick book, and most of it is repeate stuff.
That... would probably be true. And I've only been in your threads rather recently- in the ole days, it was just WWF!
QUOTE
I just think you could make your points alot more effectively if you cut them down to size, don't paste so much, and just make your point.
Yes, I probably could. This habit is probably due to the number of people in the past(not many on UM) who I swear where trying to drive me over the edge.
Usually, I try and summarize what I'm trying to say towards the end. Especially with questions. I like using questions.
QUOTE
If people want you to back up every single point with information, they'll let you know.
Yes, you are probably right about that.
QUOTE
We all know how to use a search engine. We all know how to copy and paste.
Why say search engine, and not Google? I despise all other search engines.
But otherwise, you are probably correct, but that could be debatable...
QUOTE
Plus I think I've shown that you don't really read my points before making these huge responses.
Hmm... This part eerks me. I make a rather big effort to read all of the comments, especially my opponents.
I admit I mis-read your original OP, and started posting too early.
QUOTE
just think you could make your points without using huge fonts
I usually do not use huge fonts to make a point. I usually use them to make sure something's seen; Not just you, but all of us get the sneaky suspicion our posts aren't being read.
QUOTE
Lastly, you do frequently accuse me of ripping stuff off from creationist websites and whatever, and that's just not true.
Sorry, but I sincerly do not understand where you are getting this part from. My position on this has ALWAYS been an argument's a valid argument, and must be noticed, no matter who said it, or where it is located.
Perhaps you are reffering to my question about Kent Hovind's lectures? Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you. I still addressed the arguments. I don't think less of you or Creationists in general for using each others arguments.
And, I simply found it strange that Kent Hovind addressed the same 3 questions you did, and did the same scare tactic of showing the Naturalism side and the Creationist side.
QUOTE
I see no one is going to touch the actual point. I COULDN'T CARE LESS IF NEUROCHEMICALS ARE OR AREN'T THE BE-ALL END-ALL OF EMOTIONS IN AND OF ITSELF. I am questioning how anyone making that assertion can be using science correctly when making that statement, since that is not how science works... unless of course the list of what science is not is incorrect.
Dear god. I think you are missing something, son.
Lets go over a few established points.
A. Rushs of hormones/dompamine/other funky chemical names go to the brain, before and during a subject experiences feeling of compassions or love.
B. Just like the high from certain drugs comes from chemicals interfering with nerve synapses, the said chemicals have been found to alter Neurochemicals in a way that gives a euphoric feeling of love or affection.
C. Can't we LOGICALLY CONCLUDE that therefore, love/emotion is caused chemically?
If it has been shown that the chemicals ACTUALLY produce a feeling of love, in a way akin to it has been shown that crystal meth. produces a euphoric high feeling, then where is the un-science?
Son- What I'm trying to say here is that we've just popped out of the realm of science, and into the realm of logic. It is logically conclusive that the dopamine causes love.
I think I'm going to have to make a 3 way venn diagram between Science, Logic, and Religion to show what I mean.
Cheers,
SQLserver
Oh dear, I have no idea how this happens. I try and make my posts short, but they always seem to end up so long!
Here you go Creationists , Penn and Teller BS. That is an example of persistence of Creationists...
QUOTE (IamsSon @ May 7 2008, 05:46 PM) 
I am not attacking anything!
Let me try to summarize what I have been trying to point out. Based on the items listed on the "What Science is NOT" lesson plan, it is not proper nor scientifically correct to state that we know emotions are created by neurochemicals since there are limits to science and there may well be components to emotions which fall outside of the scope of science. The first part of my "evidence" is statement #1 in the list. I posted my interpretation of what the item was speaking about and my conclusions based on that. Just in case you didn't see it, here it is:
I interpret this list item to state:
1. Science is a tool (a process)
2. Science is limited in scope
These are the logical conclusions I arrive at:
1. Since science is limited, then by definition there are things which lie outside of its limits
2. Since science is limited, then it does not define the limits of reality or the human experience
3. Since science is limited, then it cannot be used to validate NOR invalidate those items which lie outside of it's scope
Again, please show me where my conclusions are illogical or false in any way.
Let me try to summarize what I have been trying to point out. Based on the items listed on the "What Science is NOT" lesson plan, it is not proper nor scientifically correct to state that we know emotions are created by neurochemicals since there are limits to science and there may well be components to emotions which fall outside of the scope of science. The first part of my "evidence" is statement #1 in the list. I posted my interpretation of what the item was speaking about and my conclusions based on that. Just in case you didn't see it, here it is:
I interpret this list item to state:
1. Science is a tool (a process)
2. Science is limited in scope
These are the logical conclusions I arrive at:
1. Since science is limited, then by definition there are things which lie outside of its limits
2. Since science is limited, then it does not define the limits of reality or the human experience
3. Since science is limited, then it cannot be used to validate NOR invalidate those items which lie outside of it's scope
Again, please show me where my conclusions are illogical or false in any way.
Ok, I have no problem explaining why your logical is wrong.
I have no problems with the list you posted of what science is not. The problem is your attempt or rather claim, what something is (emotion in this case) with no basis. You claim emotions are more than just chemical reactions and that as such, they are off limits to science. The problem is you have no basis for this claim other than entertaining thoughts in your head. This website you constantly link too is a great website actually, its about teaching science to high school students. I am curious if you have read any other parts of their lesson plans, No? Let me copy a portion I think applies here to you. Please do spend some time reading this. If you have a problem with it, I would kindly suggest you take it up with the good folks of Indiana University.
This comes from the section entitled, Illusions.
QUOTE
A very subtle biological illusion is the sense that species don't change: that dogs have puppies, cats have kittens, and people have babies. It seems that species don't produce new species. However, this must be an illusion, since we have so much compelling evidence showing species arising from other species, and that even whole groups of organisms must have descended from other groups, and this over very long periods of time, i.e. evolution. We clearly see from the fossil record that new groups of organisms have continuously emerged over vast 100s of millions of years. In contrast, there is absolutely NO evidence or suggestion that all life forms appeared instantly or magically, over, say, six days, six years, or even 6000 years. We also have considerable evidence of species changing, sometimes quickly, but usually over long periods of time. In addition, we are beginning to have a fairly good understanding of HOW such changes occur, and HOW such changes can accumulate to produce new species and eventually entirely new groups of life forms.
d. Ask your students to list as many other illusions in nature as they can. (They might benefit by working initially in small groups to do this for about 5 minutes, then share their suggestions with the class). There are many such illusions ...just look around, and use them as examples. The sense that the earth is flat is a very powerful one. Planet motions and the actual star locations in what we see as constellations are two other areas of natural illusions.
Here are some other natural illusions, many associated in the past (and some still) with beliefs in the supernatural:
We are in the center of the universe
Earth seems closer to sun in the summer (actually closest in our northern hemisphere winter)
Light travels instantaneously
Lightning
Rainbows
Earthquakes
Eclipses (of sun or moon)
Disease, birth defects
Floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, rain
Fire
Stars in the dome of the sky
Everyone and every solid thing is solid matter (actually, studies tell us that every atom is mostly empty space, and everything material is made of atoms)
Flying saucers
Mirages
Earth stands still (even though we now know it spins at about 1000mph at the equator, races around the sun once a year (at over 66,700 mph), travels around our galactic center, AND is coursing through space with our galaxy.)
d. Ask your students to list as many other illusions in nature as they can. (They might benefit by working initially in small groups to do this for about 5 minutes, then share their suggestions with the class). There are many such illusions ...just look around, and use them as examples. The sense that the earth is flat is a very powerful one. Planet motions and the actual star locations in what we see as constellations are two other areas of natural illusions.
Here are some other natural illusions, many associated in the past (and some still) with beliefs in the supernatural:
We are in the center of the universe
Earth seems closer to sun in the summer (actually closest in our northern hemisphere winter)
Light travels instantaneously
Lightning
Rainbows
Earthquakes
Eclipses (of sun or moon)
Disease, birth defects
Floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, rain
Fire
Stars in the dome of the sky
Everyone and every solid thing is solid matter (actually, studies tell us that every atom is mostly empty space, and everything material is made of atoms)
Flying saucers
Mirages
Earth stands still (even though we now know it spins at about 1000mph at the equator, races around the sun once a year (at over 66,700 mph), travels around our galactic center, AND is coursing through space with our galaxy.)
Now this next part here is a really good,
QUOTE
"Perception is not always reality" (with apologies to Mercedes Benz). At some point, make it clear that the natural world is full of illusions, and simple common sense doesn't always work to explain such illusions. This is where science is an especially reliable tool, able to cut through illusions, useful to help us dig out the real story....the most accurate explanation, the reality behind the illusions. Nevertheless, science is not perfect; science can be fooled, too. For that reason, people who practice the art of creating illusions professionally ("magicians" and "sleight of hand artists") are sometimes even better equipped to see through illusory phenomena, especially if they are intentional, as perpetrated by hoaxers and con artists. Randi the Magician is one such professional who has exposed such people where scientists had been fooled. Explore the world of Randi by visiting his web site. He is occasionally featured on television demonstrating his success at unmasking the tricks of those who would profit at your expense: psychic readers, magical healers, spoon benders, clock starters, and the like. If possible, tape one of his shows, and share with your classes. Great for discussion.
You might find it useful to make a large banner (or have a student do it) for your room: "Perception is not always reality!" (Some may recognize it as the Mercedes Benz slogan, where it has a totally (?) different meaning). In any case, it will be amazing how often during the year you can glance up at the banner, conspicuously and knowingly, when an appropriate example comes up. Even some of your students will take the initiative at times. Great! Encourage that!
5. There is a close tie between natural illusions and making false assumptions. Actually, natural illusions exist largely because we make certain false assumptions. For a most useful ongoing activity, take a look at our lesson on "False Assumptions".
You might find it useful to make a large banner (or have a student do it) for your room: "Perception is not always reality!" (Some may recognize it as the Mercedes Benz slogan, where it has a totally (?) different meaning). In any case, it will be amazing how often during the year you can glance up at the banner, conspicuously and knowingly, when an appropriate example comes up. Even some of your students will take the initiative at times. Great! Encourage that!
5. There is a close tie between natural illusions and making false assumptions. Actually, natural illusions exist largely because we make certain false assumptions. For a most useful ongoing activity, take a look at our lesson on "False Assumptions".
A false assumption is exactly what you have done. You have made the assumptions that there is "more to emotion and human condition than meets the eye" and the false assumption that the study of emotion falls outside the "scope of scientific study". 30 or 40 years ago this would be a great argument. However, as it stands today we have quite a firm grasp on neurobiology and understand that emotions are caused by the chemistry that occurs in our brains. Another case of advances in science removing something from the realm of supernatural.....
QUOTE (Tiggs @ May 7 2008, 12:31 PM)
No - I mean they use exactly the same data and come to completely radically different conclusions. Take a look at the graph of the data:
You see that X rather high on the left, around the beginning of the 1700's? The entire set of measurements is skewed by this single result to give the bulk of the result of 38Km/S decay that he desperately needs to prove a Young Earth.
Remove that one point - and you get a very, very different result.
Basically - what's happened is that someone wanted to prove that light was slowing and used some rather poor historical observations of the speed of light to try and make that case. Given that the most accurate you could time something hundreds of years ago was to the second, then, quite frankly, it's amazing that they were as close as they are.
You see that X rather high on the left, around the beginning of the 1700's? The entire set of measurements is skewed by this single result to give the bulk of the result of 38Km/S decay that he desperately needs to prove a Young Earth.
Remove that one point - and you get a very, very different result.
Basically - what's happened is that someone wanted to prove that light was slowing and used some rather poor historical observations of the speed of light to try and make that case. Given that the most accurate you could time something hundreds of years ago was to the second, then, quite frankly, it's amazing that they were as close as they are.
Tiggs and others interested: If you go back and read the paper again, you'll find that the data was collected by sources in addition to the Setterfield data. In fact, in the introduction the author addesses that fact and did account for outliers in the data. Perhaps this is why this particular study did get so much attention by the scientific community. Say what you want about the auther, but this is a solid piece of science - as I said before.
METHOD OF DATA SELECTION
Data has been drawn from four secondary sources: Setterfield [19], Froome and Essen [11], Dorsey [7] and Birge [2]. As there is agreement in these sources concerning the original published values no search of the original sources was made. The values from these four sources have been collected into a single table of 207 values (Appendix A). From these I removed duplicate values and constructed a second table of single valued independent experimental data (SVIED) which contains 158 values, one single value for every recognized experiment (S and D's removed from Appendix A). The SVIED was then analyzed for methods or data which were not acceptable because they were outliers, rejected by scientific authorities or contained anomalous and unacceptable characteristics. The remaining 119 values (SVIEAD) were subjected to a sensitivity analysis. Three additional data were eliminated by the sensitivity analysis leaving 116 data accepted for analysis (DAFA; * or M* in Appendix A). The error bars were taken from the secondary sources except for Setterfield's data where the error bars quoted in Hasofer's regression analysis [13] were used. One exception to this is the error bar for Delambre which is decidedly too small and was increased to a more modest 1000 km/sec. For data which appeared in more than one source the errors were the same with two or three exceptions. The primary use of this data was in justifying the variance assumption of the weighted regression technique and secondarily in the analysis by error bar size.
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 7 2008, 03:04 PM)
You mean the ICR data is faulty right? The study I posted from Montgomery is solid, to include comments on measurement sensitivity and bias http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkalan.html. Study the article for yourself and see if you have any issues with it. Here's the end of it.
CONCLUSIONS
The above analysis has accepted the published values, reworkings and corrections as valid. This does not mean that new information has not or will not arise to change the assessment of the proper value which should be assigned to the observations. It would be entirely appropriate to reevaluate the published values in light of any new techniques or knowledge. This I leave to the physicists. My purpose here is to provide motivation and justification for such research.
From my analysis it may be reasonably concluded that:
(1) EMU/ESU and standing wire data are too insensitive to test Setterfield's hypothesis.
(2) Both Aberration and Kerr Cell results have systematically low values.
(3) c(t) = 299792 + .031 x [(1967.5-t)(exp 2)] is a suitable regression model for the velocity of light values in the last 250 years.
(4) Tests of the selected data strongly support an decrease in the values of c. No evidence of experimental causes could be found for the observed decrease.
(5) Predictive abilities of the Setterfield hypothesis make a physical interpretation of the empirical decrease not only reasonable but credible.
The regression model in this paper ought to be given priority over previously published regression lines since it is the only one which is weighted, homoscedastic and non-autocorrelated. In addition it is the only one based on one in vacuo datum per experiment. It provides the soundest grounds so far to decide the question. The various non-random distributions of the data by date, precision, accuracy, and method are too consistent and pervasive to have been caused by systematic experimental and experimenter biases. Those biases and systematic errors in the data which can be identified are not helpful in providing a non-physical explanation of the results. The prediction of a substantially divergent ages for dynamic processes proceeding from nuclear processes is a very critical test of the Setterfield hypothesis. There exist physical examples which extend past the three hundred years of data used here. These data are compatible with Setterfield's hypothesis but unexpected from conventional physics. The agreement of statistical and physical evidences provide ample grounds for pursuing physical mechanisms to explain the decrease in the velocity of light.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to all those who contribute their time and talents to these conferences. Their energy and commitment are admired. I would also thank Dr. Tom Goss whose professional skills in statistical analysis were not only helpful but were given freely and lovingly despite his busy schedule. Lastly, I would like to thank Lambert Dolphin for his encouragement through the trials of life as well as science.
CONCLUSIONS
The above analysis has accepted the published values, reworkings and corrections as valid. This does not mean that new information has not or will not arise to change the assessment of the proper value which should be assigned to the observations. It would be entirely appropriate to reevaluate the published values in light of any new techniques or knowledge. This I leave to the physicists. My purpose here is to provide motivation and justification for such research.
From my analysis it may be reasonably concluded that:
(1) EMU/ESU and standing wire data are too insensitive to test Setterfield's hypothesis.
(2) Both Aberration and Kerr Cell results have systematically low values.
(3) c(t) = 299792 + .031 x [(1967.5-t)(exp 2)] is a suitable regression model for the velocity of light values in the last 250 years.
(4) Tests of the selected data strongly support an decrease in the values of c. No evidence of experimental causes could be found for the observed decrease.
(5) Predictive abilities of the Setterfield hypothesis make a physical interpretation of the empirical decrease not only reasonable but credible.
The regression model in this paper ought to be given priority over previously published regression lines since it is the only one which is weighted, homoscedastic and non-autocorrelated. In addition it is the only one based on one in vacuo datum per experiment. It provides the soundest grounds so far to decide the question. The various non-random distributions of the data by date, precision, accuracy, and method are too consistent and pervasive to have been caused by systematic experimental and experimenter biases. Those biases and systematic errors in the data which can be identified are not helpful in providing a non-physical explanation of the results. The prediction of a substantially divergent ages for dynamic processes proceeding from nuclear processes is a very critical test of the Setterfield hypothesis. There exist physical examples which extend past the three hundred years of data used here. These data are compatible with Setterfield's hypothesis but unexpected from conventional physics. The agreement of statistical and physical evidences provide ample grounds for pursuing physical mechanisms to explain the decrease in the velocity of light.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to all those who contribute their time and talents to these conferences. Their energy and commitment are admired. I would also thank Dr. Tom Goss whose professional skills in statistical analysis were not only helpful but were given freely and lovingly despite his busy schedule. Lastly, I would like to thank Lambert Dolphin for his encouragement through the trials of life as well as science.
Hi Yeti,
My apologies for not posting my work for you sooner, I have not got a chance to finish my explanation of redshift for you with mathematical examples. I did get a chance to read the paper posted by Montgomery and cringed as he went right along with Setterfields data and conclusions, which is a mathematical nightmare. Anyway, while you await my redshift explanation, I found this interesting point by point refutation of Setterfield's work (Montgomery's as well). While I certainly do not wish to have a "website war", I think it important that you read all 44 pages of the mathematical corrections to their work. As the authors (2 Ph.D. physicists) of the paper say;
QUOTE
Researching and refuting creationist claims is a thankless job for scientists.
Please do take the time to read over this, Some of the errors they found are a embarrassment for someone with a little knowledge of algebra, calculus and physics. One can't help but feel a little sorry for Setterfield and Montgomery while reading this crushing review of their sloppy work. Some points and mistakes are almost comical in a sad kind of way. Please be sure to read the apendicies for some very comical calculations. I would encourage anyone interested in math or physics to have a peek at the atrocities committed by Setterfield and Montgomery.
With out further ado,
CLICK ME
An interesting aside,
Dr. Bridgeman is a Christian who "got tired of YEC lies"
In case anythings thinks this article is not worth the read, I included a little excerpt here
QUOTE
Setterfield’s theory runs into fatal difficulties with the interaction of his atomic and dynamic/gravitational timescales. Gases in gravitational fields, such as stars and planetary atmospheres, provide an excellent “laboratory” for such effects. Here we show, following observations by Kari Tikkanen, that the implications of Setterfield’s hypotheses do not always occur in difficult-to-measure distant space.Molecules in gases do not move at uniform speeds. Through collisions, their speeds are distributed over a wide range in the form of a “Boltzmann distribution.” The average molecular velocity is
vavg=√(8kT/πm)
where k is Boltzmann’s constant (1.38 x 10-16 erg K-1), T is temperature, and m is molecular mass. For oxygen (m = 5.34 x 10-23 g) and T = 270 K, we find 420=vm/s.
The problem occurs when we consider Setterfield’s hypothesis that mass varies as ζ-2(t), according to Equation (2). This means that the average molecular speed was greater in the distant past, varying as (with m as today’s value):
vavg=δ(t)√(8kT/πm)
Unfortunately, this creates a severe problem for life on planet Earth. A molecule traveling upward with a velocity greater than the Earth’s escape velocity of 11,000 m/s will escape from the planet’s gravity, never to return. For oxygen, Figure 18 shows that the average velocity exceeds the escape velocity for ζ values greater than 26.
Atmosphere Escapes from Earth’s Gravity
Of course, Setterfield needs ζ to have been vastly greater than this in the past to explain the visibility of distant galaxies in a Universe only 8,000 years old. If ζ (t) had never exceeded 26 in the past history of his creationist Universe, the most distant object we could see would be at most 26 x 8,000 = 20,800 light years away. We wouldn’t even be able to see the nearest galaxies outside our own! The problem is even more severe than outlined above, because many molecules in the atmosphere have velocities much greater than the average. Hence, the atmosphere would actually leak away to space at c-decay factors much less than 26. To date, Setterfield has not advanced even a rudimentary counterargument to this lethal objection.
Edited formating for clarity
vavg=√(8kT/πm)
where k is Boltzmann’s constant (1.38 x 10-16 erg K-1), T is temperature, and m is molecular mass. For oxygen (m = 5.34 x 10-23 g) and T = 270 K, we find 420=vm/s.
The problem occurs when we consider Setterfield’s hypothesis that mass varies as ζ-2(t), according to Equation (2). This means that the average molecular speed was greater in the distant past, varying as (with m as today’s value):
vavg=δ(t)√(8kT/πm)
Unfortunately, this creates a severe problem for life on planet Earth. A molecule traveling upward with a velocity greater than the Earth’s escape velocity of 11,000 m/s will escape from the planet’s gravity, never to return. For oxygen, Figure 18 shows that the average velocity exceeds the escape velocity for ζ values greater than 26.
Atmosphere Escapes from Earth’s Gravity
Of course, Setterfield needs ζ to have been vastly greater than this in the past to explain the visibility of distant galaxies in a Universe only 8,000 years old. If ζ (t) had never exceeded 26 in the past history of his creationist Universe, the most distant object we could see would be at most 26 x 8,000 = 20,800 light years away. We wouldn’t even be able to see the nearest galaxies outside our own! The problem is even more severe than outlined above, because many molecules in the atmosphere have velocities much greater than the average. Hence, the atmosphere would actually leak away to space at c-decay factors much less than 26. To date, Setterfield has not advanced even a rudimentary counterargument to this lethal objection.
Edited formating for clarity
I just glanced through some of the equations in the appendix. I tried to follow through the whole process and explanation of the equation in appendix A, and my head hurts, I think. I am no layman or simpleton but that stuff is complicated. I can see it would take me more than just a glance to begin to grasp those equations to anyone not very familiar.
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 8 2008, 02:43 AM)
... We ARE NOT CRITICIZING SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS ...
... like it or not, evolution is a belief system - ...
I would rephrase that as follows -- theory of evolution is a belief system based on faith. ... like it or not, evolution is a belief system - ...
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 8 2008, 04:09 PM)
I would rephrase that as follows -- theory of evolution is a belief system based on faith.
Yes. We know. My stance would be:The theory of evolution is not a belief system based on faith
Ahh, Copasetic. In only 76 posts, you've become one of my favorite posters. I wish I could comprehend that level of mathamatics - I won't pretend I can - it is enough to read the... shall we say, desicive, language of the preface and the summary to see the fatal errors in Setterfields work.
and, of course:
QUOTE
The contributions of those who expose the distortions of “creation scientists” are often buried in obscure Internet sites and discussion groups.
ZING!
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 8 2008, 07:09 AM)
I would rephrase that as follows -- theory of evolution is a belief system based on faith.
Please Karlis - and Yeti,
Kindly point out how evolution (the fact) and evolution (the theory) are belief systems?
I have no doubt you can wax philosophical about how our perceptions are simply a translation of electrical signals in our brains therefore nothing we perceive can be presumed as 'real', but I am not talking philosophy here. I want to know how you compare the theory and fact of evolution with the belief in Creationism and how, therefore, both are belief systems.
I would also bring your attention to this quote of yours from post# 406 in reply to mandrake quoting EvilBible.com:
QUOTE
Tell me Mandrake -- after reading the above isolated verses, how much understanding would one gain about the incidents described there? No understanding at all, agreed? ... But then, the whole purpose of the EvilBible.com website is to distort the Bible.
I agree, using verses framed in any one sense is a distortion of the bible. So what answer do you have for the teachings that the bible is "the Good Book"? Surely it must be taught it is "the Good and Evil Book" if we are to understand the will of the divinity that supposedly resides within its verses. Do those who teach only the good of the bible distort its teachings?
This is probably off-topic, but I wanted to bring to your attention that bias (and distortion of what the bible actually says) exists on both sides of the theistic divide. Those who believe are certainly not immune to this.
I believed the big bang happened and evolution started and then a single cell organism evolved into a god that started creating his own universes and life.
This way both sides love me hehe...or wait do they both hate me?
This way both sides love me hehe...or wait do they both hate me?
SQL ... You're lying and you knowz it! All liez I tellz ya--liez! You and yourz fancy learnin' books! God done did it, like the greats Ken Hovind and such sayz, and that's that! Genesis, Genesis, Genesis ...! 
D ... Nobody does it better then Penn & Teller!
If you didn't want to know ... why post this thread and challenge evolution[ist]--a well established discipline?! Did you think we would not respond in force ... and do so with an abundance of information?! After all, it is you who stated:
If it's too much ... then you shouldn't have asked so much. You know the response such a question is going to receive. The last thing you should be doing is complaining about too much information--which you completely ignore anyway. We make a point, we support it.
MK,
Sean
D ... Nobody does it better then Penn & Teller!
QUOTE
YETI Sql: If I collected all of the posts that you've put into my threads alone they would make for a very thick book, and most of it is repeate stuff. I just think you could make your points alot more effectively if you cut them down to size, don't paste so much, and just make your point. If people want you to back up every single point with information, they'll let you know.
If you didn't want to know ... why post this thread and challenge evolution[ist]--a well established discipline?! Did you think we would not respond in force ... and do so with an abundance of information?! After all, it is you who stated:
QUOTE
In recent threads I have heard several skeptics and evolutionists make comments about Creationists that I don't appreciate. One person claimed we were slippery and always tried to weasel our way out of arguments, etc. Others claim that we don't have the ability to offer one shred of scientific evidence in favor of Creationism. I could go on and on. I find this strange because most of you know I've been on this board engaged in debates for about two months now. I've decided that the best way to clear this up is to just come out and offer my perspectives and what scientific evidence I can provide. My arguments in favor of Creationism will take the form of the following...
1. The Creation Itself
2. The Holy Bible
3. Problems with Abiogenesis
4. Problems with Evolution
5. Problems with the Fossil Record
6. Problems with Radiometeric Dating Methods
7. Unexplained Phenomenon
8. Personal Testimony
9. Miracles and Healings
10. Prophecies and Other Proofs
As you know Creationism is really a religious belief and like any other belief; it requires faith. Still, if there is anything to it, we should be able to provide reasonable arguments and evidence supporting it. That's what I hope to do here. It's going to take some time and so I'll have to approach each category as a separate post. I would also like to say that I am offering my own opinions. I'm not affiliated with any creation research organization whatsoever. My opinions do not necessarily represent the "Creationist Community" at large. I don't really know what all they believe. These are my own personal opinions. I will now begin working on my first post - the creation itself. Regards.
1. The Creation Itself
2. The Holy Bible
3. Problems with Abiogenesis
4. Problems with Evolution
5. Problems with the Fossil Record
6. Problems with Radiometeric Dating Methods
7. Unexplained Phenomenon
8. Personal Testimony
9. Miracles and Healings
10. Prophecies and Other Proofs
As you know Creationism is really a religious belief and like any other belief; it requires faith. Still, if there is anything to it, we should be able to provide reasonable arguments and evidence supporting it. That's what I hope to do here. It's going to take some time and so I'll have to approach each category as a separate post. I would also like to say that I am offering my own opinions. I'm not affiliated with any creation research organization whatsoever. My opinions do not necessarily represent the "Creationist Community" at large. I don't really know what all they believe. These are my own personal opinions. I will now begin working on my first post - the creation itself. Regards.
If it's too much ... then you shouldn't have asked so much. You know the response such a question is going to receive. The last thing you should be doing is complaining about too much information--which you completely ignore anyway. We make a point, we support it.
MK,
Sean
YETI et al ... I have asked this question numerous times and have yet to receive an answer (save from PA) ... Why can you not be a Christian and still believe in evolution? Why can't humanity evolve in the presence of God?
Mk,
Sean
Mk,
Sean
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 8 2008, 04:33 PM)
Please Karlis - and Yeti,
Kindly point out how evolution (the fact) and evolution (the theory) are belief systems?
From my uneducated point of view, the theory is held as "fact" by evolutionists -- thus their belief on this "fact" is a matter of faith.Kindly point out how evolution (the fact) and evolution (the theory) are belief systems?
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 8 2008, 04:33 PM)
I would also bring your attention to this quote of yours from post# 406 in reply to mandrake quoting EvilBible.com:
I agree, using verses framed in any one sense is a distortion of the bible. So what answer do you have for the teachings that the bible is "the Good Book"? Surely it must be taught it is "the Good and Evil Book" if we are to understand the will of the divinity that supposedly resides within its verses. Do those who teach only the good of the bible distort its teachings?
This is probably off-topic, but I wanted to bring to your attention that bias (and distortion of what the bible actually says) exists on both sides of the theistic divide. Those who believe are certainly not immune to this.
In answer to the above, I would like to point out that the biblical records of Israel's history outline "the good, the bad, and the ugly" parts of their past. The Bible does not gloss over Israel's ugly aspects. The evil they perpetrated is, in my opinion, recorded for posterity -- Why? -- so that posterity will be able to learn from the past mistakes.I agree, using verses framed in any one sense is a distortion of the bible. So what answer do you have for the teachings that the bible is "the Good Book"? Surely it must be taught it is "the Good and Evil Book" if we are to understand the will of the divinity that supposedly resides within its verses. Do those who teach only the good of the bible distort its teachings?
This is probably off-topic, but I wanted to bring to your attention that bias (and distortion of what the bible actually says) exists on both sides of the theistic divide. Those who believe are certainly not immune to this.
These are my thoughts, and athers will undoubtedy have different views,
Karlis
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 8 2008, 07:58 AM)
From my uneducated point of view, the theory is held as "fact" by evolutionists -- thus their belief on this "fact" is a matter of faith.
In answer to the above, I would like to point out that the biblical records of Israel's history outline "the good, the bad, and the ugly" parts of their past. The Bible does not gloss over Israel's ugly aspects. The evil they perpetrated is, in my opinion, recorded for posterity -- Why? -- so that posterity will be able to learn from the past mistakes.
These are my thoughts, and athers will undoubtedy have different views,
Karlis
In answer to the above, I would like to point out that the biblical records of Israel's history outline "the good, the bad, and the ugly" parts of their past. The Bible does not gloss over Israel's ugly aspects. The evil they perpetrated is, in my opinion, recorded for posterity -- Why? -- so that posterity will be able to learn from the past mistakes.
These are my thoughts, and athers will undoubtedy have different views,
Karlis
but if the bad isnt there isnt that contradictory?
QUOTE
K From my uneducated point of view, the theory is held as "fact" by evolutionists -- thus their belief on this "fact" is a matter of faith.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
... In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICA
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evolution.html
Creationism is a belief system based on a religious text ... and faith! Evolution is a discipline taught in schools/universities around the world for a reason--facts support a theory and a theory stands until disproven. In 150 years, and countless experiments, evolution has not been disproven. In fact, experiments have only reinforced the legitacamy of evolution. Can the same be said for creationism? Not in the least!
Sean
KARLIS, YETI et al ... I have asked this question numerous times and have yet to receive an answer (save from PA) ... Why can you not be a Christian and still believe in evolution? Why can't humanity evolve in the presence of God?
Mk,
Sean
Mk,
Sean
QUOTE (seanph @ May 8 2008, 11:24 PM)
KARLIS, YETI et al ... I have asked this question numerous times and have yet to receive an answer (save from PA) ... Why can you not be a Christian and still believe in evolution? Why can't humanity evolve in the presence of God?
Mk,
Sean
My personal belief is that evolution does have a place in creation, but that evolution is not the beginning.Mk,
Sean
For example, as far as I know, even proponents of evolution accept as fact that as far as reproduction is concerned, only "kind begets kind"; meaning that you cannot cross two species to produce a brand new creature, of a previously non-existant species.
The same principle, I believe, applies to evolving a brand new (different species)creature from an existing line.
I know this sounds somewhat garbled, but I will leave it as is, till later.
Karlis
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 8 2008, 01:37 PM)
My personal belief is that evolution does have a place in creation, but that evolution is not the beginning.
For example, as far as I know, even proponents of evolution accept as fact that as far as reproduction is concerned, only "kind begets kind"; meaning that you cannot cross two species to produce a brand new creature, of a previously non-existant species.
The same principle, I believe, applies to evolving a brand new (different species)creature from an existing line.
I know this sounds somewhat garbled, but I will leave it as is, till later.
Karlis
For example, as far as I know, even proponents of evolution accept as fact that as far as reproduction is concerned, only "kind begets kind"; meaning that you cannot cross two species to produce a brand new creature, of a previously non-existant species.
The same principle, I believe, applies to evolving a brand new (different species)creature from an existing line.
I know this sounds somewhat garbled, but I will leave it as is, till later.
Karlis
The problem there is speciation has been proven and hybridisation is also a fact.
QUOTE (Mattshark @ May 8 2008, 11:47 PM)
The problem there is speciation has been proven and hybridisation is also a fact.
Could you please say that in simple, lay-man terms?Thanks,
Karlis
PS: Also, please give an example of each of the above ... *but* please do not give a dozen URLs.
If I may butt in on your conversation here:
Seanph, your claim:
It requires faith? For what? To do what? To be legit? To sustain itself? Can't you see you're cutting the branch you're sitting on? Creationism is one big Catch 22.
Science requires no faith to be valid. It has its own intrinsic value and sustains itself only by deduction of theories and facts brought by scrutinizing people. Creationism does nothing like that. Argumentation of Creationism is like painting the target around the already shot arrow.
Seanph, your claim:
QUOTE
As you know Creationism is really a religious belief and like any other belief; it requires faith.
It requires faith? For what? To do what? To be legit? To sustain itself? Can't you see you're cutting the branch you're sitting on? Creationism is one big Catch 22.
Science requires no faith to be valid. It has its own intrinsic value and sustains itself only by deduction of theories and facts brought by scrutinizing people. Creationism does nothing like that. Argumentation of Creationism is like painting the target around the already shot arrow.
QUOTE (Leonardo @ May 7 2008, 11:33 PM)
Please Karlis - and Yeti,
Kindly point out how evolution (the fact) and evolution (the theory) are belief systems?
Kindly point out how evolution (the fact) and evolution (the theory) are belief systems?
It's simple Leo; neither has been observed so their both belief systems.
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 8 2008, 01:51 PM)
Could you please say that in simple, lay-man terms?
Thanks,
Karlis
PS: Also, please give an example of each of the above ... *but* please do not give a dozen URLs.
Thanks,
Karlis
PS: Also, please give an example of each of the above ... *but* please do not give a dozen URLs.
Speciation is when one species becomes another. In 1989 Diane Dodd proved this using two isolated populations of fruit flies and fed them different diets. After 8 generations they had diverged enough to separate species. This is known as Allopatric speciation Parralell Speciation
This was a follow on from work in 1988 from the work of Rice and Salt which should disruptive speciation also with fruit flies. Disruptive Speciation
This is of course back by breeding methods used by farmers. Farm animals are not natural animals and have not wild populations because we have bred them so selectively we have formed new species. Hence there is no wild animal known as Ovis aires, the domestic sheep.
Hybridisation is when two seperate species breed to form a new animal. This is known to occur in mammals. The ass is a cross between a horse and donkey, the liger is a cross between a lion and a tiger, the zorse or hebra is a cross between a horse and zebra and the wolphin is a crossbreed of different dolphin species (these animals are no more closely related than many other species, in fact dolphins are very much less closely related than we are to either chimps or gorillas). It is something used a lot in horticulture and is well recognised.
Wiki - Hybridisation.
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 8 2008, 08:37 AM)
For example, as far as I know, even proponents of evolution accept as fact that as far as reproduction is concerned, only "kind begets kind"; meaning that you cannot cross two species to produce a brand new creature, of a previously non-existant species.
I have personally observed, in the field, fertile interspecific crosses between southern red oak and black oak. If these crossed individuals continue to reproduce, we will have a new species.
I have observed fertile interspecific crosses between Rocky Mountain birch and paper birch in a one-of-a-kind stand in Boulder, Colorado. It has been isolated since the end of the last ice age.
Eastern cottonwood has produced more than 400 different interspecific crosses. The researcher estimated he had at least that many more to go and gave up because the project was too big.
In Wyoming, Rocky Mountain juniper and eastern red-cedar have produced a cross that is so successful it has excluded both parent species from most of Wyoming.
So, at the species level, "kinds" do cross, at least among plants. Because these crosses can back-breed to the parent species, they are not considered separate species. That blurs the distinction between species, because it means the parent species can produce fertile offspring in violation of the species definition. The real world just doesn't fit our nice, neat definitions real well.
"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine."
"Plants are whores, anyway."
Doug
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 8 2008, 02:11 PM)
It's simple Leo; neither has been observed so their both belief systems.
Oh Yeti you know that is not true. I have posted innumerable amounts of evidence showing observed evolution.
QUOTE (seanph @ May 8 2008, 06:24 AM)
KARLIS, YETI et al ... I have asked this question numerous times and have yet to receive an answer (save from PA) ... Why can you not be a Christian and still believe in evolution? Why can't humanity evolve in the presence of God?
God said he made us. The theory of evolution says that we evolved from lower (less complex) life forms. We don't believe you can have both. Therein lies the conflict. Many of us accept that living things can adapt and attempt to thrive in their environments, that's a common instinct to all living things - the will to survive.
QUOTE (Mattshark @ May 8 2008, 07:16 AM)
Oh Yeti you know that is not true. I have posted innumerable amounts of evidence showing observed evolution.
Please read the last 5 or so pages of the thread and then make that statement.
QUOTE
If I may butt in on your conversation here:
Seanph, your claim:
QUOTE
As you know Creationism is really a religious belief and like any other belief; it requires faith.
It requires faith? For what? To do what? To be legit? To sustain itself? Can't you see you're cutting the branch you're sitting on? Creationism is one big Catch 22.
Science requires no faith to be valid. It has its own intrinsic value and sustains itself only by deduction of theories and facts brought by scrutinizing people. Creationism does nothing like that. Argumentation of Creationism is like painting the target around the already shot arrow.
Seanph, your claim:
QUOTE
As you know Creationism is really a religious belief and like any other belief; it requires faith.
It requires faith? For what? To do what? To be legit? To sustain itself? Can't you see you're cutting the branch you're sitting on? Creationism is one big Catch 22.
Science requires no faith to be valid. It has its own intrinsic value and sustains itself only by deduction of theories and facts brought by scrutinizing people. Creationism does nothing like that. Argumentation of Creationism is like painting the target around the already shot arrow.
Ummm ... I'm not sure why you're aiming this at me, MS? I believe firmly in evolution. Creationism is complete rubbish and does require faith to believe in it. Why? It is based on the literal interpretation of Genesis and requires faith--faith being the belief in something that lacks material evidence. Evolution ... I'll repeat what I said above ...
Creationism is a belief system based on a religious text ... and faith! Evolution is a discipline taught in schools/universities around the world for a reason--facts support a theory, and a theory stands until disproven. In 150 years, and countless experiments, evolution has not been disproven. In fact, experiments have only reinforced the legitacamy of evolution. Can the same be said for creationism? Not in the least!
Here is a great commentary on said subject ...
4th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8&NR=1
Sean
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 8 2008, 02:18 PM)
Please read the last 5 or so pages of the thread and then make that statement.
I have read them Yeti and I have posted papers showing evolution and speciation occurs.
Sorry Sean, I misquoted you. Or rather, used your quote in a wrong way. Sorry for that.
What I mean, though, is exactly what I write but it isn't aimed at you.
What I mean, though, is exactly what I write but it isn't aimed at you.
Ok Yeti. Why where the 2 papers I posted for Karlis not observed evolution. Please feel free to explain?
WWF couldn't so he just ignored them.
Like he ignored the following.
Bacteria Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Animal Evolution - A whole text book for you.
Evolution
Evolution
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Evolution
Evolution
Links between humans and sharks
Evolution of Dinosaurs.
The extremely well documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs
More bird evolution
Evolution
Bird evolution
Insect evolution
Insect evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Plant evolution
Plant evolution
WWF couldn't so he just ignored them.
Like he ignored the following.
Bacteria Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Animal Evolution - A whole text book for you.
Evolution
Evolution
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Evolution
Evolution
Links between humans and sharks
Evolution of Dinosaurs.
The extremely well documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs
More bird evolution
Evolution
Bird evolution
Insect evolution
Insect evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Plant evolution
Plant evolution
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 8 2008, 10:17 AM)
God said he made us. The theory of evolution says that we evolved from lower (less complex) life forms. We don't believe you can have both. Therein lies the conflict. Many of us accept that living things can adapt and attempt to thrive in their environments, that's a common instinct to all living things - the will to survive.
There are no 'lower' life forms. Thats one of the main points evolution gets across.
Your last sentence describes evolution. That is what evolution is...
QUOTE (Cimber @ May 9 2008, 12:28 AM)
There is no 'lower' life forms. Thats one of the main points evolution gets across.
...
This sounds as if we may be going in circles in this topic-thread. ...
Back to basics -- How did mankind as it now exists, come into existence?
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 8 2008, 02:36 PM)
This sounds as if we may be going in circles in this topic-thread.
Back to basics -- How did mankind as it now exists, come into existence?
Back to basics -- How did mankind as it now exists, come into existence?
Speciation from now extinct hominid forms.
QUOTE (Mattshark @ May 9 2008, 12:40 AM)
Speciation from now extinct hominid forms.
Hhmmm ... what does that mean in simple, plain English?Can you give very specific and detailed "trails" of this form of evolution?
I mean, simply showing a possible path of evolution is not proof, in my opinion.
What do you think?
Karlis
QUOTE
MS Sorry Sean, I misquoted you. Or rather, used your quote in a wrong way. Sorry for that.
What I mean, though, is exactly what I write but it isn't aimed at you.
What I mean, though, is exactly what I write but it isn't aimed at you.
No problem MS.
MK,
Sean
QUOTE (Mattshark @ May 8 2008, 10:26 AM)
Ok Yeti. Why where the 2 papers I posted for Karlis not observed evolution. Please feel free to explain?
WWF couldn't so he just ignored them.
Like he ignored the following.
Bacteria Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Animal Evolution - A whole text book for you.
Evolution
Evolution
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Evolution
Evolution
Links between humans and sharks
Evolution of Dinosaurs.
The extremely well documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs
More bird evolution
Evolution
Bird evolution
Insect evolution
Insect evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Plant evolution
Plant evolution
WWF couldn't so he just ignored them.
Like he ignored the following.
Bacteria Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Evolution
Animal Evolution - A whole text book for you.
Evolution
Evolution
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Speciation
Evolution
Evolution
Links between humans and sharks
Evolution of Dinosaurs.
The extremely well documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs
More bird evolution
Evolution
Bird evolution
Insect evolution
Insect evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Cetacean evolution
Plant evolution
Plant evolution
If you posted them for Karlis, why are you ranting about me not explaining them? I probably didn't explain them because they were directed at Karlis; like you said in your post.
I don't think people are ignoring your links, but why don't you at least specify what you expect people to find in each one instead of expecting others to thumb through pages of articles and journals.
Your presentation methods are sloppy. You provide like 30 links to articles and expect an analysis of each one without any explanation of what part of the articles you want people to focus in on.
This is great ... As is the whole series which really addresses the topics raised by creationists in this thread ...
The 8th foundational falsehood of creationism:
“Mutations are rare, harmful decreases in genetic information.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs&NR=1
Watch all of them--1-15.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=potholer54
They're short and wonderfully detailed.
Sean
The 8th foundational falsehood of creationism:
“Mutations are rare, harmful decreases in genetic information.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs&NR=1
Watch all of them--1-15.
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=potholer54
They're short and wonderfully detailed.
Sean
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 8 2008, 10:18 AM)
Please read the last 5 or so pages of the thread and then make that statement.
Yeti!
I am kind of hurt you have posted and not responded to my post. Did you by chance miss it, HERE is the link.
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 8 2008, 10:45 AM)
Hhmmm ... what does that mean in simple, plain English?
Can you give very specific and detailed "trails" of this form of evolution?
I mean, simply showing a possible path of evolution is not proof, in my opinion.
What do you think?
Karlis
Can you give very specific and detailed "trails" of this form of evolution?
I mean, simply showing a possible path of evolution is not proof, in my opinion.
What do you think?
Karlis
Can you explain by what you mean "trails" of this form of evolution.
Karlis, you keep asking others for laymans terms and to "put things in plain English". If you want to understand evolution, you are going to have to invest some time into understanding what is evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, that may mean reading. Some of that reading you may not understand so you will need to look up definitions and what not.
Not believing in something simply because we don't take the time to understand it is no excuse to believe such a thing does not exist. Nor would I think that god would appreciate something so dishonest.
Sorry for posting more of these brief documentaries ... But this is particularly fascinating ...
9 -- Human Ancestry Made Easy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8edyoZFW-Lg...feature=related
10 -- Human Ancestry Made Easy
This video explains how we acquire this knowledge, and how ideas go from a hunch in a laboratory to accepted theories taught in school.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14...feature=related
sean
9 -- Human Ancestry Made Easy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8edyoZFW-Lg...feature=related
10 -- Human Ancestry Made Easy
This video explains how we acquire this knowledge, and how ideas go from a hunch in a laboratory to accepted theories taught in school.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14...feature=related
sean
QUOTE (Copasetic @ May 9 2008, 01:12 AM)
Can you explain by what you mean "trails" of this form of evolution.
Karlis, you keep asking others for laymans terms and to "put things in plain English". If you want to understand evolution, you are going to have to invest some time into understanding what is evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, that may mean reading. Some of that reading you may not understand so you will need to look up definitions and what not.
Not believing in something simply because we don't take the time to understand it is no excuse to believe such a thing does not exist. Nor would I think that god would appreciate something so dishonest.
Well -- "plain English" regarding evolution should not be a problem for experts, should it?Karlis, you keep asking others for laymans terms and to "put things in plain English". If you want to understand evolution, you are going to have to invest some time into understanding what is evolutionary theory. Unfortunately, that may mean reading. Some of that reading you may not understand so you will need to look up definitions and what not.
Not believing in something simply because we don't take the time to understand it is no excuse to believe such a thing does not exist. Nor would I think that god would appreciate something so dishonest.
By "trails" I mean exact and specific lines of evolution ... meaning; a new species being created (or, "evolving"
)Now, "if" I have to understand all the theories of evolution -- methinks that is asking me to accept these theories on "faith" -- as I wrote earlier.
I do not mind reading; in fact I do enjoy reading to understand what is being proposed ... but I will not accept "theories" as "fact".
If you can present evolution as fact, please do so.
I know this is becoming rather nebulous, but, I will look forward to more input,
Karlis
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 8 2008, 09:17 AM)
God said he made us. The theory of evolution says that we evolved from lower (less complex) life forms. We don't believe you can have both. Therein lies the conflict. Many of us accept that living things can adapt and attempt to thrive in their environments, that's a common instinct to all living things - the will to survive.
First of all:
Man wrote the bible, so, technically, man is telling us that god made us.
I know all about the belief that the bible was written by man at god's command or through god's inspiration, although this kinda falls apart once you consider some of the posts that have pointed out differences in numbers and historical information that seem to change from one book of the bible to another.
Using some of the thinking/logic you yourself have used on this board, these differences could, if one chose to believe it that way, disprove god altogether, as god is infallible. Since the words written at god's will or inspiration have been shown to be, at times, inaccurate, that would argue against the infallibility of god. Therefore since god's word as written in the bible is NOT infallible, god must not be infallible. Therefore, if god is not infallible, he can't be god, as infallibility is one of his defining traits.
Another way to look at it is this: it is possible that the errors mentioned above came into being because man is NOT infallible, and was prone to sometimes put down the word of god incorrectly. Therefore, could there not be a CHANCE that the story (or rather stories) of creation in genesis could have manmade errors in them? Which would therefore NOT make them accurate, verbatim accounts of the creation of man?
Secondly:
In another post in this thread, you said, and I quote:
QUOTE
Genesis Account: the bible should be taken literally when it is reasonable to do so. It should be interpreted figuratively when figurative language is used.
Is it not possible that the following quote from the bible could be one of those that should be considered figuratively?...
Genesis 2:7: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Especially since science has, as far as I know, proven that we are NOT made of dust.)
Why could that statement not mean that god created the incredible, interconnected system of evolution that evolutionists say ended up creating mankind?
If you say no, then why not?
Or, better yet, what in Genesis can be considered figuratively?
Thirdly:
What happens to the idea of creationism for someone for whom the bible is NOT the basis of their faith? Do they NOT exist? Are they damned? Are they not a member of "mankind"?
I'm just curious, as almost all of the creationist literature relies on the bible as its basis.
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 8 2008, 09:17 AM)
God said he made us. The theory of evolution says that we evolved from lower (less complex) life forms. We don't believe you can have both. Therein lies the conflict. Many of us accept that living things can adapt and attempt to thrive in their environments, that's a common instinct to all living things - the will to survive.
Intelligent Design maintains that God directed evolution. I guess that means you don't accept Intelligent Design.
An article in the current edition of "Science" addresses complexity very nicely. It compares the human genome with that of the fugu (The fish that nearly killed Homer Simpson.). Seems that about 95% of the human genome consists of endless repetitions of the same non-functional bit of DNA. In the fugu, only about 30% of the genome is taken up by non-functional DNA. The human genome deactivates the useless replications, while the fugu's gradually eliminates them. While the human genome is more "complex," the fugu's is more highly evolved. It might be wise to drop the anthropocentric use of "higher" or "lower" as these terms are based on false concepts of the path that evolution has taken.
IF God exists, then there is no physical reason that God and evolution couldn't exist together at the same time. In order to come up with the above belief, you have to assume: 1. There is a God; and, 2. The existence of God forecloses the possibility of evolution occurring. That's TWO assumptions; if either is wrong... You say you believe that living things can adapt, so the only way you can reject evolution without an error in logic is to conclude that God doesn't exist. Time to re-examine those assumptions.
It is POPULATIONS that evolve. Individual organisms are stuck with the genetic compliment they were born with. An individual cannot change species, but when two reproductively-separated populations accumulate enough differences that they can no longer breed, a new species ("kind") has evolved. If the two populations are then intermingled, they will remain distinct species. That's the over-simplified explanation - real life is full of exceptions and caveats.
On the topic of intermediate species: every species is undergoing genetic change, some faster than others, so every life form is intermediate. But if you want some specifc examples: the wooley mammoth evolved into the imperial mammoth which evolved into the Columbian mammoth. The imperial mammoth was the intermediate form. As I understand human evolution, Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus, evolved into Homo sapiens; Homo erectus was the intermediate form. Black cottonwood evolved into quaking aspen, evolved into trembling aspen. Quaking aspen is the intermediate form. On and on through thousands of sequences.
The possibility of a species going extinct was once rejected as impossible, because it would implie that God had made a mistake. We now know that species are going extinct on an almost-daily basis, implying that God has made thousands of mistakes. Theological thinking has turned out to be remarkably flexible. It would be nice to hear a modern theological interpretation of evolution with respect to the Bible, rather than just re-hashes of the Middle Ages version.
Doug
QUOTE (Copasetic @ May 8 2008, 07:08 AM)
Yeti!
I am kind of hurt you have posted and not responded to my post. Did you by chance miss it, HERE is the link.
I am kind of hurt you have posted and not responded to my post. Did you by chance miss it, HERE is the link.
Don't take it personally Cope, I was getting ready for work. Your post is going to require alot of time and concentration. Plus, I'm have some issues with computer monitor eye strain right now and by rights I should turn the flipping computer off for a week or two. There's just such a firestorm happening here right now. I should say that the very bias in your opening statements raises flags. The guy published a quality scientific paper, period. Why does that have to be about young earth creationism which I don't believe anyway? The scientists are claiming to debunk creationist claims of a young earth and that is not the issue. Variation in c measurements is the issue; the implications stem from that. Let me be Sql.
PLEASE CALM DOWN EVERYONE!!!!!!!1
No one can tell another man what to believe. We haven't disproved the theory of evolution. We have made some good points to consider, that's a fact. The only thing that we have done here is prove that the theory of evolution as it now stands is a belief system like creationism because it has never been observed.
MRSA - Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus - resistent bacteria. (Mattshark - please show me one link of yours that doesn't involve bacteria just to save me time cause I'm having issues right now) I'm really running out of energy and time on this now. Let's clear this up - whether or not MRSA or other bacteria "evolves" as you guys claim is debatable. Resistent bacteria is still bacteria. It hasn't morphed into a new species. Does that prove microevolution? Maybe, maybe not. I'd like to argue that it proves adaptation.
In any event; people believe what you want - that is everyone's right. Just realize that we are the same in that our interpretation of data has led us to our beliefs. That's all. You guys hash it out. My best wishes to everyone and thanks for participating.
Regards from Yeti
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 8 2008, 02:45 PM)
Hhmmm ... what does that mean in simple, plain English?
Can you give very specific and detailed "trails" of this form of evolution?
I mean, simply showing a possible path of evolution is not proof, in my opinion.
What do you think?
Karlis
Can you give very specific and detailed "trails" of this form of evolution?
I mean, simply showing a possible path of evolution is not proof, in my opinion.
What do you think?
Karlis
I did. Speciation is one species becoming another. As shown in the two papers I posted which had observed speciation in them. It is not a possible path of evolution, it IS evolution.
Try reading the basics - Speciation
How can you argue against evolution when you do not know what speciation is?
QUOTE (Karlis @ May 8 2008, 09:43 AM)
I do not mind reading; in fact I do enjoy reading to understand what is being proposed ... but I will not accept "theories" as "fact".
If you can present evolution as fact, please do so.
I know this is becoming rather nebulous, but, I will look forward to more input,
Karlis
If you can present evolution as fact, please do so.
I know this is becoming rather nebulous, but, I will look forward to more input,
Karlis
So what is the point of trying to understand something if you believe it to be false, and will not accept it as otherwise?
In order for a scientific theory to exist, it must be supported by facts, that is the very basis of scientific method.
QUOTE (WalkingWithFire @ May 8 2008, 02:46 PM)
If you posted them for Karlis, why are you ranting about me not explaining them? I probably didn't explain them because they were directed at Karlis; like you said in your post.
I don't think people are ignoring your links, but why don't you at least specify what you expect people to find in each one instead of expecting others to thumb through pages of articles and journals.
Your presentation methods are sloppy. You provide like 30 links to articles and expect an analysis of each one without any explanation of what part of the articles you want people to focus in on.
Oh look, excuses and ignoring evidence. They where not for Karlis, but expecting you to actually read and pay attention is clearly too much so I shall leave you to wallow in your ignorance since you are determined to ignore anything that shows you are wrong.
QUOTE (Yetihunter @ May 8 2008, 11:17 AM)
The only thing that we have done here is prove that the theory of evolution as it now stands is a belief system like creationism because it has never been observed.
Let me ask you something then:
Does the wind exist?
You can't directly observe the wind itself, only its effects. Does that mean I can only "believe" in the wind?
Do black holes exist?
You can't directly observe them, and their existence is only "proven" by the inference of their effects. Does that mean I can only "believe" in black holes?
Does my Xanax help my anxiety attacks only because I "believe" it does?
Or, perhaps, is it because of the scientifically "proven" chemical effects it causes in my brain that counteract the out of control "fight or flight" response that caused my attack in the first place?
If you believe that the wind and black holes exist - things that we know about only by inference based on observing their effects on other physical bodies - why can't you believe another scientific principle that relies partly on inference based on physical evidence?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.