Transitional evolutionary forms

[Insight]

We have apes, we have men, but we have no ape-men.

We have reptiles, we have birds, but we have no reptile birds.

We have land mammals, sea mammals, yet only ONE TYPE of air mammal.

We have apples, we have figs, but we have no apple-figs.

We have cats, we have dogs, we have no cat-dogs.

If dinosaurs evolved into birds, they why are there fossils of modern day birds along side dinosaurs.

Why would the largest land beings evolve into creatures that are lightweight enough to fly?

We have reptiles, we have mammals, but we have no reptile-mammals.

Does it sound like I am repeating myself here? Because I am.

Explain the absence of transitional forms.

And one last thing, if every law of thermodynamics states that energy flows from a high state to a low state, and that organized matter decays into unorganized matter, then why would these laws which can be applied to everything imaginable, single out the progression of living materials to an organized fashion, regardless of the time that has passed over them?

Thoughts, comments, theories?

[Insight]

PS Does Thermodynamics mean that we are DE-evolving over time?

If not, then what does it me in regards to this?

[koenig212003]

Insight, you seem to be misunderstanding the process of evolution. The extant species of apes and humans, as well as all the extinct species of apes evolved from a common ancestor. I cannot explain the whole process to you for lack of time and space but all of these species of apes that have lived over time could be interpreted as the transitional forms you are referring to. When mutations happen, most of the time they are deleterious but sometimes they give a selected advantage to the individual and they in turn have better reproductive success. This is evolution in a nutshell. Perhaps sitting in an a college level course on biology or anthropology could help you understand the process better. And to address your statement of:"Why would the largest land beings evolve into creatures that are lightweight enough to fly?" Well you see not all dinosaurs evolved into birds. One or perhaps a few species evolved into birds and to what evidence are you referring to about your statement "If dinosaurs evolved into birds, they why are there fossils of modern day birds along side dinosaurs."?

[firefemme1202]

And, there were flying dinosaurs as well. Teradactyls. So they evolve because they have to adjust more to their environment. They were large bird dinosaurs. A large wing span. But we also have large birds (albatross, eagles, etc) with similarly large wing spans. Just because one specie of dinosaurs evolves into something that survived the dinosaur era doens't mean all of the dinosaurs would have evolved to survive as well.

[Insight]

And, there were flying dinosaurs as well. Teradactyls.

Yes, flying DINOSAURS. They were reptilian, not avian. Completely different classes. Why didn't the flying reptiles survive along with the birds?

So you say they evolve because they have to adjust more to their environment.

Do not confuse evolution (The changing of one species into another) with adaptation (Certain genetic traits if a species becoming more or less prevalent.). The peppered moth comes in two varieties, one of which nearly died out from predaters during the undustrial revolution due to the fact that the white moths were more visible on the soot covered trees and were picked off.

For a species to evolve, it must get new, original genetic information, add it to it's code by replacing and loosing old bits of data.

Mutation is not evolution, because it is the error of already existing genetic code, not the accumulation of NEW code.

Adaptation is not evolution, because it is dormant traits in already existing code becoming more or less prevalent.

Chickens actually contain a gene that if tunred "on", will cause them to grow teeth in their beeks. This code is not coming from outside the chicken's code (evolution), but from inside (adaptation)

They were large bird dinosaurs.

This sentences is faulty. You cannot group two species as one. Bird-LIKE dinosaurs, yes. Do we classify bats as bird mammals? No. They are mammals. Do we classify whales as mammal fish? No, they are also classified as mammals.

While humans DNA most closely resembles primates, our RNA most closely resebles that of a chicken. And out Mammary enzymes that of a donkey. That's right, our Mammary enzymes are much closer to that of a donkeys than to that as a Primate. And our RNA is so far from that of a monkey it's not even funny.

A large wing span. But we also have large birds (albatross, eagles, etc) with similarly large wing spans.

Similar. yes. Not identical. Much as a dolphin has similar appendages to a human. And a slug, similar optical organs to that of a human. All things have similarities, ecspecially those things which share their plane (Ie land, water, or air)

Just because one specie of dinosaurs evolves into something that survived the dinosaur era doens't mean all of the dinosaurs would have evolved to survive as well.

But where do the NEW genetic codes come from that enables the dinosaurs to aquire new genes, and lose old ones, becoming a completely new species?

DNA is the most complex single molecule in the universe. Quite litterally millions of times more complex than any non-living matter. How would a species have a new piece of code put into them, and old pieces removed? Further more, how would this new code exist seperately from a living being and then become part of one, kicking out the old code?

[kikuchiyo]

I think she was talking about the south american "terror Birds"

***

to answer to your "new" genetic codes question: It's started off as a mutation, ( like gaining a bigger frontal lobe for modern man) then that "positive" mutation will give to the mutant an edge over it's predecessors. This edge gave it an "natural" superiority giving it the right to mate, that in term permitted the mutant gene to go forward to the other generation and so on.

+++

Also the rarety of "transitional" beings is due to the fact that they are "transitional", therefore a product not completely evolved to survive in X environment...it's a question of time and climate.

(look for neanderthal man)

Edited November 20, 2004 by kikuchiyo

[firefemme1202]

Insight, all you did was make me look ignorant (which yes it's been a few years since my biology classes) in my knowledge of DNA, RNA and other ways of the body.

However you did not disprove that the flying dinosaurs, whether it was mutation or evolution or whatever you would like to call it, was not the original "blueprint" or "design" for our birds we have today.

There is no proof to prove that I'm wrong, same as there is no evidence to prove evolutionism or creationalism either way. When there is no evidence, you must be open to the theories presented. Humanity can't even get to the deepest trenches in our own oceans. We can't exactly date the age of the Sphinx. Humanity can't even prove or disprove whether an ancient city (Atlantis) existed. So when you talk about the differences of mutation or evolution...whether we're more closely related to donkeys, monkeys or slugs, I know that CHANGES happen daily to humanity, and that is something that is easily proven. If we can see noticeable changes in the last couple hundred years, don't you think the changes on a longer time scale would be noticeably larger? A lot of people use the analogy that a few hundred years ago, people were CERTAIN the world was flat, well, in another few hundred years, the things we feel certain about could be proven wrong, and obviously you're a very intelligent person. There is a reason you believe in what you do, but why? There must be plenty of credible sources you learned this information, what are they? What makes you so certain, but not the science world?

Is it my understanding you lean more towards creationalism? If so, what evidence do you have that causes you to lean more in that direction than evolution? Provide sources if you don't mind, credible ones, it would truly be informative.

[aquatus1]

I have to disagree most strongly about the lack of evidence concerning evolution. I have discussed, at length, many of the things mentioned in this thread in my "Scientific Methodology" thread and in the "Creationism Vs. Evolution" debate. I would strongly recommend reading those to anybody with a desire to find detailed answers to mosts of the points in this thread.

"We have apes, we have men, but we have no ape-men."

Define "ape-men". We have a large assortment of creatures along both the ape and human evolutionary line (no, we do not descend from apes) that share similar characteristics.

"We have reptiles, we have birds, but we have no reptile birds."

Why would we? Reptiles and birds are two disctinct species, seperately evolved.

"We have land mammals, sea mammals, yet only ONE TYPE of air mammal."

"Type"? What does "type" mean? Species? There is more than one species of flying mammal. Does it mean Genus? Are we talking the entire Chiroptera family?

Incidentally, what difference would it make if we had one or a hundred of either?

"We have apples, we have figs, but we have no apple-figs."

Again, what is your point here? Are you suggesting that the apple is evolutionarily descended from the fig?

"We have cats, we have dogs, we have no cat-dogs."

I believe the earliest common ancestor of cats and dogs was the Miacid. They went extinct quite a while ago.

"If dinosaurs evolved into birds, they why are there fossils of modern day birds along side dinosaurs."

The first creature we could classify as having modern-day feathers was the Archeopteryx, which was indeed a contemporary of some dinosaurs.

"Why would the largest land beings evolve into creatures that are lightweight enough to fly?"

Same reason anything else evolves. Random chance.

"We have reptiles, we have mammals, but we have no reptile-mammals."

That is because, again, they are not in each others lines of descent, and no one that I know of has ever claimed the to be.

"Does it sound like I am repeating myself here? Because I am."

No, actually. It sounds like you are repeating the same simplistic arguments all creationists use. You could read the two topics I mentioned above and find answers to many more of the arguments you are going to put forth.

[Insight]

to answer to your "new" genetic codes question: It's started off as a mutation, ( like gaining a bigger frontal lobe for modern man) then that "positive" mutation will give to the mutant an edge over it's predecessors. This edge gave it an "natural" superiority giving it the right to mate, that in term permitted the mutant gene to go forward to the other generation and so on.

No no, you misunderstood. Mutation does NOT create new genetic code. Mutation scrambles the existing code to produce random effects. If a man growes a third foot, and ends up breeding and creating more three footed people, and they end up being able to run and jump higher, this is the creation of a race, not a new specie. The man gained no new genetic code at all. What he did gain is change in instruction about how to use already existing code. No matter how many feet he grew, or how big or small they were, they weould never be anything more than feet.

Mutation does allow for diversity within a species, but it is not counted as the gain of new, seperate coding (Such as the code to grow gills, or wings)

+++

Also the rarety of "transitional" beings is due to the fact that they are "transitional", therefore a product not completely evolved to survive in X environment...it's a question of time and climate.

(look for neanderthal man)

There is not proof that neanderthal man was anything more of less than modern day man. Maybe he was hunched, had a thicker skull, or smaller brain cavity, but this does not mean he contained genes that humans do not contain. Hitler thought Germans were genetically superior than blacks, even though Hitler contained all the genes that he needed to become fully black. (And please do not think I am comparing hitler to any of you people right now. Nor am I comparing what he thought to what you think. I'm trying to make a similarity into ANY person or race thinking they are "more" or "Better" than any other race.

Though Neanderthal man may have been simple, primitive, and stooping, I believe these are a result of his culture, and evironment, and society, and not because of his inferior genetic code.

[kikuchiyo]

Insight, first i used the " " arround new, because it's not new it's a nuace of a existing gene. Second, Neanderthal man was a subspecie of Homo sapian, they weren't hunched and had a bigger brain then modern man...Infirior genetics, what's this? Climate made them into what they were, when the climat changed the Neanderthals were taken over by it's southern "version".

[Insight]

Insight, all you did was make me look ignorant

I apologize for this, as it was not my intent. I was merely trying to bring as much information to the subject at hand as possible.

However you did not disprove that the flying dinosaurs, whether it was mutation or evolution or whatever you would like to call it, was not the original "blueprint" or "design" for our birds we have today.

Actually I did. But you didn't understand it.

You still do not seem to understand the difference between evolution, mutation, and adaptation. The "blue print" for a house accounts for every material needed in it's construction. You can use those materials in different ways that don't follow the blue print exactly, and end up with a different house depending on your preference (Adaptation) or with somting completely different build from the house materials (Mutation), but to end up with a bigger, better, more advanced house, you would need to bring in outside meterials that were not in the original blue print, and then incorporate them into the new blue print (evolution).

There is no proof to prove that I'm wrong,

Are you 100%percent positive? In my mind, the logic path and matter interaction laws I have stated here prove to my mind beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. I am open to new ideas and suggestion, and will incorporate everything into my logic line, but you have not given me any new tools to do so, nor any curves that force me to re-evaluate.

same as there is no evidence to prove evolutionism or creationalism either way.

Whoa whoa whoa! You admit that there is not evidence proving evolution? I can honestly admit that this is the very first time a believer of evolutuionary theory admitting to the fact that there is no proof of evolutions credibility.

And as I said, never say never. You limit your mind for both sides. If you say there is no proof either way, you will never see any proof, ever, of either way. Read my above post for more on this.

Humanity can't even get to the deepest trenches in our own oceans.

How do you know that? What if somebody lied to us about the fact for some unknown reason? (Unlikely, but consider it)

We can't exactly date the age of the Sphinx.

Nor can we exactly date anything.

Humanity can't even prove or disprove whether an ancient city (Atlantis) existed.

We can't? What if we already did, but th epowers that had done so decided to keep it a secret for our best interests, or to keep the power of it to themselves?

Besides, there is much evidence a city existed. Even the fact that we know it's name is reason to believe that "Something" existed.

So when you talk about the differences of mutation or evolution...whether we're more closely related to donkeys, monkeys or slugs, I know that CHANGES happen daily to humanity, and that is something that is easily proven. If we can see noticeable changes in the last couple hundred years, don't you think the changes on a longer time scale would be noticeably larger?

Of course they would. But CHANGE and EVOLUTION are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a reason you believe in what you do, but why? There must be plenty of credible sources you learned this information, what are they? What makes you so certain, but not the science world?

I am part of the science world. Infact, I know many professor level scientists who share my beliefs. There is an increasing number of scientists who are coming to bvelieve what I do. In time, perhaps all of science will. But the better asnwer to this is the fact that humable are fallable, matter and energy are fallable, and therefore, if left to their own devices, the human masses are MORE LIKELY tolean toward inproper theory, because we are corruptable, more than we are incorruptable. That's why with out law ENFORCEMENT, society would degrade. It's not enough that we simply know the laws. This is why I am so certain, because the only way for me to persue incorruptability, is for me to persue something TRUELY incorruptable by nature:God. Does thgis logic line make sense?

You must learn about the secrets of the earth. The secret societies. The natures of becoming powerful. The human natures. The natures of matter. You much learns into all of these to believe what I believe. You must lose trust in autority.

[Insight]

Insight, first i used the " " arround new, because it's not new it's a nuace of a existing gene.

You should have said, "Different existing", not new. That would have fit.

Second, Neanderthal man was a subspecie of Homo sapian, they weren't hunched and had a bigger brain then modern man...Infirior genetics, what's this?

I apologize. My intent was to convey a mainstream conception of what a primitive man was. An "ape-man" if you will.

Climate made them into what they were, when the climat changed the Neanderthals were taken over by it's southern "version".

Yes, and this is called adaptation and/or mutation. But not evolution. Creationism completely allows and accounts for adaptation and mutaion. But not for evolution.

[kikuchiyo]

so mutation and adaptation isn't allowed by evolution eh?.

So even though the evolution is the modification of a specie, it's not a mutation nor an adaptation. If we follow that logic, this means that evolutionary steps are gifts form the sky and the unique creations of god can re-create them selfs and modify there bodies to live in harmony with there environment (even though only god can create).

fuzzy math...

I will leave you these words from Douglas J. Futuyma Ph.D. of the University of Michigan:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

[aquatus1]

Insight, as I feared, you are simply going over very well trod creationist arguments. Since I have already gone over these at length in the above sources, I will ask you outright: What exactly would it take for you to believe in evolution?

I ask this because your arguments do not display a knowledge of evolutionary biology. They do not show an understanding of genetics. Nor do you show any formal logical structure in your deduction. In and of itself, none of this is inherently bad. It is simply a lack of experience.

Creationists arguments sound very convincing and scientific to the layman mind, however when they are met with the unwielding brutality of objective evidence, logical deduction, and scientific methodology, they invariably crumble. I have absolutely no fear whatsoever that you can pose a question concerning evolution that I cannot answer in as excrutiating detail as you wish (trust me, many here will vouch that my posts can sometimes be excrutiating).

Currently, the points that you have made are very basic ones that can be easily answered by any first year biology student, let alone a student of evolutionary biology, and your arguments reflect the basic strategy of amorpheus definitions and straw man arguments that creationists like so much. I have no need to defend evolutionary theory; it has withstood much harsher attacks than any arising within this forum. I am, however, interested in convincing you of the scientific validity of it. Whether you choose to believe it or not is then up to you.

So, my question to you is quite simply this: What will it take for you, Insight, to believe in the scientific validity of evolutionary theory?

[Insight]

Insight, as I feared, you are simply going over very well trod creationist arguments. Since I have already gone over these at length in the above sources, I will ask you outright: What exactly would it take for you to believe in evolution?

This caused you fear?

I ask this because your arguments do not display a knowledge of evolutionary biology.

Would you have me be an experienced pupil of a following I feel is faulty? Would I myself consider your arguments to display a knowledge of creationist biology?

They do not show an understanding of genetics.

Define "understanding".

Nor do you show any formal logical structure in your deduction.

Define "formal logical structure".

In and of itself, none of this is inherently bad. It is simply a lack of experience.

Nor would I consider any lacking of knowledge by you in regards to creationist theory a bad thing. Unknown ignorence is innocence. Knowful ignorance is is almost a crime of sorts.

Creationists arguments sound very convincing and scientific to the layman mind,

Layman?? I do not believe that term would apply to a friend of my mother's who is a creationist quantum physicist, at such a level he has very high clearing military codes given to him.

however when they are met with the unwielding brutality of objective evidence,

Objective? But I though you believed Truth was subjective, not objective?

logical deduction, and scientific methodology, they invariably crumble.

As do the cities of man, and the hills of the ants. All theories put in place by man pose threat of decy. Which is why I seek truths from an incorruptable source. This comes mainly by faith in God, which to a non believer could only seem faulty at best. But to say the bible contains no scientiffic information is ignorant. The bible said the earth was round thousands of years before columbus. Did prehistoric man have methods decerning such? Curious.

I have absolutely no fear whatsoever that you can pose a question concerning evolution that I cannot answer in as excrutiating detail as you wish

Details behind a lie can often be greater than those of a truth. Of course I do not believe you are knowingly lying about anything you believe in, I am by no means making that accusation at all.

(trust me, many here will vouch that my posts can sometimes be excrutiating).

I wouldn't have it any other way. How else is my faith to be challenged?

Currently, the points that you have made are very basic ones that can be easily answered by any first year biology student,

You seem the first to think so. Also, what leads you believe I have not studied past first year biology? Perhaps my school teaches different truths that do not coincide with yours?

let alone a student of evolutionary biology,

A course I was unwilling to take. However I believe in my arguments of late, it would be valuable to have under my belt. However, I would find it difficult to devote to, for obvious reasons. Though devotion of such is not outside my realm of ability.

and your arguments reflect the basic strategy of amorpheus definitions and straw man arguments that creationists like so much.

Do you expect me to type a thesis on this page in regards to my beliefs? Obviously the form of written communication which this page allwos has it's limits. As does my time concerning recreational activities.

I have no need to defend evolutionary theory; it has withstood much harsher attacks than any arising within this forum.

As had the creationist theory of my subscription.

So, my question to you is quite simply this: What will it take for you, Insight, to believe in the scientific validity of evolutionary theory?

First, I would need the laws of thermodynamics to apply to the ordered struction of evolution. (which may be very simple for you. I don't know.)

Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.

Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.

I have seen malignent cacers mysteriously curced after prayer. I have seen crippled men walk after prayer. I have seen a man deaf in one ear hear from it, after prayer. I have had countless times in my life where a "sure thing" was comprimised, and later learned of intense interventional prayer on my behalf. I have withnessed supernatural events in my life, and all of them are tied directly into the prayer and following of the Living, loving God.

Upon my decisions to follow Him, I began to see things that were impossible become possible. But it was only after these decisions to follow him. Would God reveal his concrete actions to a person who would indefinately regect them? No, because it would be a waste of time. Like peeing into the wind for him I suppose. I have even heard reports from bretheren about powerful movements, in which 3 people were raised from the dead (Unfortunately I was not able to withness this myself, so it of course will be subject to more speculation that things I have seen with my own eyes.).

So, I guess what I'm saying, is that you would need to prove to me that these things I have witnessed were all coincidence. You would need to scientiffically explain how a persons belief in something that doesn't exist can open the world of the impossible, and enrich your life beyond words.

You would also have to convince me that scientiffic validity can ever be truely valid. That our collective observations of purposed fact are free from collective error.

But what would probably do it for me, is if you proved evolutionism AND creationism collectively wrong, and began a new theory which sweeps the nation in a way neither could.

Are there more creationists than evolutionists? Is the majority wrong, or the minority wrong? Does majority ever matter? I don't know.

Lets say that you were able to provide to me evolutionary evidence that swayed my beliefs of God. Then if he were truely real, he would reveal to me any error in such, and allow me to believe in him once more.

Let the games begin??

*chuckles*

[kikuchiyo]

flint to the stone tool to the wheel to the lever to the inclined plane

Would you have me be an experienced pupil of a following I feel is faulty?

Well it is the best way to comprehend the world, to understand the world we live in we must seek information form any source available (well that's my point of view). I studied theology for a semester in college because it's my quest for knowlegde that drove me to it. If you are simply interested in your own little world then so be it, but i would tell you this an opened mind is like having opens eyes, they are better to see the beauty of the complexity of ones' universe.

The bible said the earth was round thousands of years before columbus. Did prehistoric man have methods decerning such? Curious.

Yet it was used many times againts Copernic and Galilée, curious indeed.

First, I would need the laws of thermodynamics to apply to the ordered struction of evolution. (which may be very simple for you. I don't know.)

Do you know the law of Lavoisier? (nothing Disappears, nothing is Created there is only transformation)

Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.

Well what's even more tricky is to prove if god exist at all. ( If not gods)

Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.

That would be called the placebo effect, in my antropology study group we studied that effect, which is quite interesting indeed. Some use Shamans others Crystals and some use gods, but it all have the same effect a form of healing, basically ease the pain and removes stress. That effect can also be seen in players when they "pump up" before a match with team songs and cheers.

Upon my decisions to follow Him, I began to see things that were impossible become possible. But it was only after these decisions to follow him. Would God reveal his concrete actions to a person who would indefinately regect them? No, because it would be a waste of time. Like peeing into the wind for him I suppose. I have even heard reports from bretheren about powerful movements, in which 3 people were raised from the dead (Unfortunately I was not able to withness this myself, so it of course will be subject to more speculation that things I have seen with my own eyes.).

Tell me can a child born prematurely think for him self;"there's no god, i'll let those doctors cure me". My family and I spend days praying to a god to help this small child, but he wouldn't live to even be able to open his eyes, yet live long enough to feel the pain of broken legs and several operations. Can Moises reject god, could he? was he even able to understand what was happening around him?

[Mr. 420]

Hey Insight, you, me, and Lodge should start a cult.

"The zealous religious non-conformists of confoundedly correct collected consciousness conspiracies"

We should get a banner.

[aquatus1]

This caused you fear?

Asides from being a fairly common non-literal expression, yes, it did indeed. Cre vs. Evo threads tend to be long and require much patience, and can get tiring at times. Unfortunately, I can never seem to back down from them.

Would you have me be an experienced pupil of a following I feel is faulty? Would I myself consider your arguments to display a knowledge of creationist biology?

Yes, most definitely. I have studied creationist argument with the same zeal and throughness that I used against evolutionary arguments. I can and have on many occasion pointed out the logical fallacies and incorrect assumptions that many rely on, and I will do so for you as well. I am indeed an experienced pupil of creationism, though not a follower. There is nothing wrong with learning about what the other side of a debate teaches; in fact, it is often the simplest manner with which to demonstrate both a respect for their knowledge and obtain the credibility any person requires prior to passing on their own teachings.

Define "understanding".

Understanding is having a thorough or technical acquaintance with the practice of a given field. For instance, in the field of evolution, or science in general, you have made several statements that do not reflect what the field teaches, such as your examples of evolutionary descent, and your request to prove something wrong. This indicates a lack of both knowledge and experience, as these questions are generally answer throughout not just one experiment, but through the practice of the entire field.

Define "formal logical structure".

Formal Logic is a method used by science to verify the correctness of an argument. It has specific rules and warning flags that point out if the argument is structured in a faulty manner. It is not, a method for gleaning facts or evidence, but rather one for logical deduction. As an example, you have committed the Fallacy of Composition with your thermodynamics example, and I will explain that further on.

Nor would I consider any lacking of knowledge by you in regards to creationist theory a bad thing. Unknown ignorence is innocence. Knowful ignorance is is almost a crime of sorts.

I couldn't agree more. This is why it is so important for you to learn a bit more about evolutionary theory prior to deciding that it is false.

Layman?? I do not believe that term would apply to a friend of my mother's who is a creationist quantum physicist, at such a level he has very high clearing military codes given to him.

Yes, but we are talking about you, not your mother's friend. He too should be able to explain the Fallacy of Composition in the thermodynamics problem, and I would be interested in knowing, should he do so, how he reconciles certain problems. Incidentally, I had top secret clearances in my military job as well, and it is a far more grandious title than the actual job warrants. It is certainly no indicator of skill and knowledge.

Objective? But I though you believed Truth was subjective, not objective?

Truth is subjective. Facts, on the other hand, are not. Truth varies from culture to culture and person to person. Science does not concern itself with truth. It concerns itself with imperical evidence and logical deduction. Truth is left to philosophers.

As do the cities of man, and the hills of the ants. All theories put in place by man pose threat of decy. Which is why I seek truths from an incorruptable source. This comes mainly by faith in God, which to a non believer could only seem faulty at best. But to say the bible contains no scientiffic information is ignorant. The bible said the earth was round thousands of years before columbus. Did prehistoric man have methods decerning such? Curious.

All theories do pose the threat of deceit, which is why there are so many complex and intricate systems put into place to detect it. Prior to being published, all theories must go through a peer review. All theories must have references, sources, and full accounting of data. Failure casts immediate doubt. Incidentally, the bible does not say the Earth was round; it states the Earth is a circle, and it does so as a metaphor at that (Isaiah 40:22--He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers)

Details behind a lie can often be greater than those of a truth. Of course I do not believe you are knowingly lying about anything you believe in, I am by no means making that accusation at all.

Yet it is true that in details lie the facts. As a student of science, I have personally verified and tested the foundations of the theories I expound. If there is an error, it is my fault for not being able to detect it by following the rules of science. As for deceit, I am afraid that I have caught creationists in knowingly passing off faulty information as factual, and I am afraid repeated experience has left me jaded.

You seem the first to think so. Also, what leads you believe I have not studied past first year biology? Perhaps my school teaches different truths that do not coincide with yours?

I guarantee you that I am not the first. The statements and claims that you made in your very first post make it very clear that you do not understand or have experience with biology. As for truth, it has no place in a science class. Either the evidence speaks for itself, or it doesn't.

Do you expect me to type a thesis on this page in regards to my beliefs? Obviously the form of written communication which this page allwos has it's limits. As does my time concerning recreational activities.

You do not need to type a thesis, but I do expect you to be able to recognize and avoid such basic errors. These have nothing to do with creationism nor deduction. They do, whoever, reflect on your credibility, no matter how innocently you use them, and they will affect the standing of your arguments.

As had the creationist theory of my subscription.

Yes, it stood unchallenged for several thousand years. And yet, when a challenger rose up less than 150 years ago, we find today that literal creationists have dropped from a global monopoly to a mere handful. How could such a longstanding notion be so dramatically overcome? Simply because Truth had to give way to fact.

First, I would need the laws of thermodynamics to apply to the ordered struction of evolution. (which may be very simple for you. I don't know.)

Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.

Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.

I will explain the first in a later post, as this one has already become too unweildy, and I must get to work.

The second betrays your lack of knowledge about science. Science does not prove that things do not exist. The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain how a phenomena works. There is not such thing as a theory that explains why something doesn't work.

As for the miraculous healing, those are far more common than you would expect. Through sheer coincidence, miracles (events beyond the statistical probability of them occuring) occur about 315 time a day. Even given that, your question is a loaded one. It presumes several things, chief among them that the cure was indeed miraculous and that implication that the Judeo-Christian god was responsible for them.

I cannot, for obvious reasons, explain each and every event you claim to be proof for your God, nor am I interested in doing so. As I stated quite clearly, my purpose is to show you how evolutionary theory is scientifically valid. Should you choose to apply the same rigorous standards that science applies to theories to your God, that is your choice. It is not, however necessary. Anybody can believe anything they wish, for belief has no rules concerning support, and sense and nonsense is waived. Belief in the theory of gravity and in the ability of a pair of unwashed gym socks to guarantee you victory are both equal. In science, however, faith is replaced by credibility. It is not simply a question of belief, but rather of support and logical deduction.

Have you read the Evo vs. Cre Debate in the debate board?

[Stellar]

Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.

Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.

Why? Why does that have anything to do with evolution? Evolution does not disprove god...

[Andy_R]

The evolution vs. creationism debate is a touchy subject.

I do agree that the most damaging evidence against evolution is the lack of transitional fossils.

If species A evolved into species K, we would expect to find fossilized remains of that species in its B through J form, yet there are none. What happened to them?

[Insight]

Do you know the law of Lavoisier? (nothing Disappears, nothing is Created there is only transformation)

I think that this law does infact coincide with thermodynamics, in the sense that nopthing NEW is created, and that matter does not end. But what does this law mean in regards to transformation? Thermodynamics would state that the transformation you speak of only occurs from High to Low. Unless Lavoisier states otehr wise, I believe these laws are one in the same, buty using different wording.

Well what's even more tricky is to prove if god exist at all. ( If not gods)

Perhaps that is only so because the christian community does not fund massive scientiffic projects regarding such, because they feel they do not have to prove their beliefs to anyone. I think the time has come where such undertakings should, neigh must become a reality.

That would be called the placebo effect, in my antropology study group we studied that effect, which is quite interesting indeed. Some use Shamans others Crystals and some use gods, but it all have the same effect a form of healing, basically ease the pain and removes stress. That effect can also be seen in players when they "pump up" before a match with team songs and cheers.

The placebo effect is a very real thing, and alot stronger than many believe it to be. But I do not believe it can nessesarily account for miraculous healings (Such as reports of movements in which people with tooth pain have been prayed for and later found diamonds in the holes of their teeth, all of these people being of a desperately poor culture, and not being able to buy their way into such a thing. These reports were confirmed to me by what I consider the most reputable of sources. Obviously they are up for debate in your community)

Tell me can a child born prematurely think for him self;"there's no god, i'll let those doctors cure me". My family and I spend days praying to a god to help this small child, but he wouldn't live to even be able to open his eyes, yet live long enough to feel the pain of broken legs and several operations.

A common question I have been asked many times. A premature child is born with no understanding, and there for essentialy spiritually perfect. Without sin. Sin being his seperation from God. If he dies without sin, he is innocent, and not condemned. Some would say this is almost a grace factor of God, in allowing a human being to pass into heaven without trials. Before the fall of man, man was not meant to die. Death did not exist, and at the time, death was only a result of being seperated from God. After the first sin, man created death for himself (man being a creative being, which was made in the image of god), and condemned every one of his offspring to it. God however still did not condemn all men to die, but rather he wanted to give them every chance for eternal life, and instructed man on how to achieve it, even if their was sin in their lives (Repentence, and in the old testament, animal blood sacrifices.)

Can Moises reject god, could he? was he even able to understand what was happening around him?

No, and therefore, if the child dies, he is without sin, and without knowledge of sin (Just like adam and eve were before eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) the child is allowed to live forever in heaven, in whatever incomprehensible form that may be.

[Insight]

Hey Insight, you, me, and Lodge should start a cult.

"The zealous religious non-conformists of confoundedly correct collected consciousness conspiracies"

We should get a banner.

366702[/snapback]

Sounds like a plan.

[Insight]

Asides from being a fairly common non-literal expression, yes, it did indeed. Cre vs. Evo threads tend to be long and require much patience, and can get tiring at times. Unfortunately, I can never seem to back down from them.

Ah, I see what you mean.

Yes, most definitely. I have studied creationist argument with the same zeal and throughness that I used against evolutionary arguments. I can and have on many occasion pointed out the logical fallacies and incorrect assumptions that many rely on, and I will do so for you as well. I am indeed an experienced pupil of creationism, though not a follower. There is nothing wrong with learning about what the other side of a debate teaches; in fact, it is often the simplest manner with which to demonstrate both a respect for their knowledge and obtain the credibility any person requires prior to passing on their own teachings.

I agree with what you say, and believe it may become nessesary for me to study evolution in depth for me to more deeply defend my beliefs in the future.

Understanding is having a thorough or technical acquaintance with the practice of a given field. For instance, in the field of evolution, or science in general, you have made several statements that do not reflect what the field teaches, such as your examples of evolutionary descent, and your request to prove something wrong. This indicates a lack of both knowledge and experience, as these questions are generally answer throughout not just one experiment, but through the practice of the entire field.

Conflicting feilds can yeild different results, and therefore different truths. Look at what Einstein was trying to accomplish with the unified feild theory. Both feilds worked mathematically seperately from one another, but they didn't line up when joined together. He failed to form a unified feild. As many have failed to prove both creationism and evolutionism together. A few have theories, just as with Einstein's feilds (Superstring anyone?) but so far nothing has yeileded revolution.

I couldn't agree more. This is why it is so important for you to learn a bit more about evolutionary theory prior to deciding that it is false.

Agreed.

Yes, but we are talking about you, not your mother's friend. He too should be able to explain the Fallacy of Composition in the thermodynamics problem, and I would be interested in knowing, should he do so, how he reconciles certain problems. Incidentally, I had top secret clearances in my military job as well, and it is a far more grandious title than the actual job warrants. It is certainly no indicator of skill and knowledge.

But it is an indicator of repect from peers. Such repect surely means something. And yes, I too would love for him to start posting on this board. I have many MANY questions for him now, and hopefully I will get to meet him again soon.

Truth is subjective. Facts, on the other hand, are not. Truth varies from culture to culture and person to person. Science does not concern itself with truth. It concerns itself with imperical evidence and logical deduction. Truth is left to philosophers.

Two completely different schools of through come from the beliefs that either truth is something to be persued, or truth is something to be invented. Infact, I think that might be the defining factor in the Creo/evo debate, and possibly that of the entire world. Believing true is subjective places the ultimate power in the hands of man himself, which is corruptable and fallable. If man defines truth for himself ,conflict inevitably arises from another man with different definitions. A main question for you now is, who is right? are they both right? If they are, then that means my definition of truth, and yours, are equally as valid, and both true. But they cannot be BOTH true if they do not prove each other.

Believing truth is objective places the ultimate power in the hands of a being that is literally made up of truth, and who is perfect and incorruptable, and able to define truth for a corruptable being. If truth is something that is perfect, and un wavering, it could not fully manifest it's self in an imperfect world. It would have to be manifest in a world of perfection, and imparted into a fallable world in any way shape or form it could. Man is not meant to achiev perfection in his life time in order to be accepted into the perfection of heaven, he is merely meant to seek truth with all his heart, and admit when he has shortcomings. After his death, he is then judged by God, who looks at his heart and decides if he was truely seeking this perfection in selflessness. It states in scripture, that when we repent of our shortcomings, God wipes our slate clean. No body can die with a perfect slate, for we will inevitably forget at least one shortcoming, because we are fallable, but God looks at this too. It goes back to the thing about the newborn child and innocence. If we innocently forget to repent a certain shortcoming, but account for as many as we possibly can, God will judge us in his favor.

As do the cities of man, and the hills of the ants. All theories put in place by man pose threat of decy. Which is why I seek truths from an incorruptable source. This comes mainly by faith in God, which to a non believer could only seem faulty at best. But to say the bible contains no scientiffic information is ignorant. The bible said the earth was round thousands of years before columbus. Did prehistoric man have methods decerning such? Curious.

All theories do pose the threat of deceit, which is why there are so many complex and intricate systems put into place to detect it. Prior to being published, all theories must go through a peer review. All theories must have references, sources, and full accounting of data. Failure casts immediate doubt.

Peers which are capable of innocent fallability.

Incidentally, the bible does not say the Earth was round; it states the Earth is a circle, and it does so as a metaphor at that (Isaiah 40:22--He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers)

Is a circle not round? He could have easily said, "The plains of the earth." But He didn't. He says everything for a reason. Also, that's a simile, not a metaphor. A metaphor is symbolic of something, a simile draws direct comparisan. A small technicality perhaps, but perhaps an important one as well.

Details behind a lie can often be greater than those of a truth. Of course I do not believe you are knowingly lying about anything you believe in, I am by no means making that accusation at all.

As for deceit, I am afraid that I have caught creationists in knowingly passing off faulty information as factual, and I am afraid repeated experience has left me jaded.

As I have experienced from my side.

Too true though, too true, and thus they look like fools for doing so, ecspecially if they do not renounce it! As I have stated, I believe facts are truths. And perfect truth cannot manifest fully in a fallable human brain. For it to do so would be man becoming God. We are not meant to become god, which is why we were not meant to understand everything, which is the ESSENSE of why were are taught to recieve the rest in faith. No christian, no matter how intellegent, will understand all truth. But he is to take on faith that the rest of the truths exist. God never says we have to understand everything about truth to enter into eternity with him.

As for truth, it has no place in a science class. Either the evidence speaks for itself, or it doesn't.

I don't think I've ever heard evidence speak. It always seems that people have to interpret it, and decide to believe it or not.

Do you expect me to type a thesis on this page in regards to my beliefs? Obviously the form of written communication which this page allwos has it's limits. As does my time concerning recreational activities.

You do not need to type a thesis, but I do expect you to be able to recognize and avoid such basic errors. These have nothing to do with creationism nor deduction. They do, whoever, reflect on your credibility, no matter how innocently you use them, and they will affect the standing of your arguments.

Agreed.

Yes, it stood unchallenged for several thousand years. And yet, when a challenger rose up less than 150 years ago, we find today that literal creationists have dropped from a global monopoly to a mere handful. How could such a longstanding notion be so dramatically overcome? Simply because Truth had to give way to fact.

I think this will be our main disagreement, because I think truth and fact are one in the same. What I percieve then, in what you have stated above, is that truth had to give way to lies. "fact" had to giveway to "misfact" The world has advanced more in the last 150 years then it has advanced in the thousands and thousands of years humans have been alive for. Since technology is power, and power corrupts, it makes sense that truth was corrupted as quickly as technology expandd quickly. I believe that we are all being controlled extensively, and that is not of God. God gave us freewill, and does not try to control us. Lucifer, on the other hand, wants power for himself, and to grieve his enemy, which is God. Lucifer would seek to control man in any way he could inorder to feel power, and to condemn souls into the torture which was created for him. (Hell being the seperation from god. A place created when lucifer fell, and a place never intended for man to dwell in the beginning.) It's not unreasonable to think that the governments has contact with aliens, and receives their highest technology from them. It is not unreasonable to think these alines are demons, or demonic, and are giving our leaders technology to be controls by Lucifer, in order to control the rest of humanity.

First, I would need the laws of thermodynamics to apply to the ordered struction of evolution. (which may be very simple for you. I don't know.)

Then, I would need proof that a loving supernatural God does not exist.

Then, I would need to you to explain the workings of miraculous healing I have witness in my travels.

I will explain the first in a later post, as this one has already become too unweildy, and I must get to work.

Science does not prove that things do not exist.

Attempt to explain. Attempt. But I disagree with this as well. Science can explain how something does not exist. Science can explain how lighting cannot exist when there is no electrical charge in the air. Science explains how frozen water cannot exist at a temperature of 100 degrees. These are obviosly elemetry observations.

The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain how a phenomena works.

Does science not allow for theory on how something doesn't work? Or is that something that is assumed when the above quote has already been placed?

But a very interesting point you have made here. The purpose of a scientific theory is to explain how a phenomena works.

Very interesting. What if the situation were revesed? What if the purpose of theory was to prove how something didn't work? Surely it would be much more tedious in it's advanced, for it is much easier to say why something is, than why something is not. Perhaps this is a fatal flaw?

There is not such thing as a theory that explains why something doesn't work.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Is it impossible for me formulate theory on why evolution doesn't work? I think I missed something here.

As for the miraculous healing, those are far more common than you would expect. Through sheer coincidence, miracles (events beyond the statistical probability of them occuring) occur about 315 time a day. Even given that, your question is a loaded one. It presumes several things, chief among them that the cure was indeed miraculous and that implication that the Judeo-Christian god was responsible for them.

Not every miracle is of God. Some are of Lucifer. He imitates God. What better way to attack the enemy then to immitate him?

As I stated quite clearly, my purpose is to show you how evolutionary theory is scientifically valid.

I don't doubt you believe in it's validity. I'd be more inclined to believe it's validity if my God told me it was true. If he told me he created the universe, then allowed it to evolve, I would believe in evolution. But he told me not so.

Should you choose to apply the same rigorous standards that science applies to theories to your God, that is your choice.

It is my choice. And I have made it. The Bible fortells a time when no man can deny the existance of God. And I would like to be part of that process. (Even though that time is during the apocolypse and such. *laughs*)

It is not, however necessary. Anybody can believe anything they wish, for belief has no rules concerning support, and sense and nonsense is waived.

Belief in the theory of gravity and in the ability of a pair of unwashed gym socks to guarantee you victory are both equal. In science, however, faith is replaced by credibility. It is not simply a question of belief, but rather of support and logical deduction.

Nothing can ever be 100% credeble though. Not in a fallable world. That's why faith even exists I suppose.

Have you read the Evo vs. Cre Debate in the debate board?

I will now.

[kikuchiyo]

Forever in heaven

Nice concept, which would rest my soul, but the fact is my brother is not alive while others live a wicked life.

****

The concept of Lavoisier is that things never really disappear they just change: As Oxygen turns into carbondioxyde after being consumed or as electron will move from atom A to atom B to "blend" them together.

---

In the glory days of religion, the vatican tried to shut the experimentations of scientist because they were asking question the bible couldn't answer. But since science became more accessible to the people the vatican simply turns away only to strike when the scientific community is able to do something that would help humanity, but to the Church it would be "playing god".

"miraculous healings"

so god would care for a tooth and not for a life? ( he was babptised only days after he was born, in order to let him reach "heaven" and not linger in the limbo with other poor souls, for more information about "where does the soul go?" check out "the 9 levels of hell")

[aquatus1]

Conflicting feilds can yeild different results, and therefore different truths. Look at what Einstein was trying to accomplish with the unified feild theory. Both feilds worked mathematically seperately from one another, but they didn't line up when joined together. He failed to form a unified feild. As many have failed to prove both creationism and evolutionism together. A few have theories, just as with Einstein's feilds (Superstring anyone?) but so far nothing has yeileded revolution.

You asked me for a definition of "understanding" and why I do not believe you have it in regards to science, and this is another example of it. Do not use the word "truth" in reference to scientific work. Truth is not scientific terminology, and has implications beyond what any theory proposes.

(In regards to security clearance)

But it is an indicator of repect from peers. Such repect surely means something.

NO! No, no, no, no. A security clearance is not an honorary title of any sort and does not carry any manner of special academic privilege or dispensation. All a security clearance means is that that person has access to data that is pertinent to the project they are working on, and ONLY the project they are working on. Security clearances are not bestowed by peers and they are not given for respect. They are granted by security personnel and only out of necessity.

Two completely different schools of through come from the beliefs that either truth is something to be persued, or truth is something to be invented. Infact, I think that might be the defining factor in the Creo/evo debate, and possibly that of the entire world. Believing true is subjective places the ultimate power in the hands of man himself, which is corruptable and fallable. If man defines truth for himself ,conflict inevitably arises from another man with different definitions. A main question for you now is, who is right? are they both right? If they are, then that means my definition of truth, and yours, are equally as valid, and both true. But they cannot be BOTH true if they do not prove each other.

Whichever is right is irrelevent. Whether truth exists as a concept is irrelevant. Creationism can trot out truth as much as it likes, but it will not make it any more scientific than it is now. Science does not rely on truth because there is no evidence that truth exists. Science relies ONLY on imperical evidence and logical deduction, not on truth.

Peers which are capable of innocent fallability.

When there are a dozen learned men seperately evaluating your work, and when your work is published in a scientific journal for the world to see and comment on, the chances of deceit grow smaller and smaller. Invariably, frauds and hoaxes are brought to the front, if they even manage to get past the peer review process to begin with. Please note that many of the examples creationists gleefully use to demostrate the times science went astray were frauds uncovered by scientists, not by creationists. For that matter, many of the frauds uncovered in creationism were also uncovered by scientists, not creationists. What guards the faithful from deception by their fellow man? What system is put into place to prevent the faithful from being taught incorrectly, innocently or otherwise?

Is a circle not round? He could have easily said, "The plains of the earth." But He didn't. He says everything for a reason. Also, that's a simile, not a metaphor. A metaphor is symbolic of something, a simile draws direct comparisan. A small technicality perhaps, but perhaps an important one as well.

Let's not be coy. A circle is not a sphere, much less an oblate spheroid. If you look at the artistic conceptions of the earth and heavens from this time period, you will find a flat, circular Earth, above and below which are several levels containing stars, moons, angels, and demons.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth--metaphor: He isn't literally on a throne up in the air. It simply symbolizes the kingly power he wields over it.

"and its people are like grasshoppers."--Simile: Two unlike things often introduced by 'like' or 'as'.

As I have stated, I believe facts are truths. And perfect truth cannot manifest fully in a fallable human brain.

And I re-state that you understanding of science is lacking. Truth is not a scientific term. It is not precise enough, which is why it is often used in creationist topics. Truth can mean a variety of different things depending on context, but by and large, its definition of "scientific fact" is overshadowed by its deeper meaning of spiritual law.

I don't think I've ever heard evidence speak. It always seems that people have to interpret it, and decide to believe it or not.

This goes back to the "fairly common non-literal expression" thing. Everything is interpreted. Everything. Wether it be scientific facts or religious text, absolutely everything has to pass through the filter of the human mind. The difference with evidence is that any person, regardless of background or personal belief, can run an experiment independantly and have the same result. In other world, they can use the evidence to verify the interpretation themselves. This cannot be done with religious text.

I think this will be our main disagreement, because I think truth and fact are one in the same. What I percieve then, in what you have stated above, is that truth had to give way to lies. "fact" had to giveway to "misfact"

I am afraid that this isn't a disagreement at all. You cannot re-define scientific terminology at will. Asides from being rude, it is also libelious. You are changing what one person said to something else, and in the process change the entire meaning and intent of their message, just as you changed my claim that philosophical truth had to give way to objective evidence into truth had to give way to lies. Personally, I find the implication of the latter to be somewhat insulting.

Since technology is power, and power corrupts, it makes sense that truth was corrupted as quickly as technology expandd quickly.

This is an example of what I claimed to be your deficit in creating a logical argument:

If: A equals B,

If: B equals C,

Then: A equals C

A: Technology, B: Power, C: Corruption

Technology equals Power

Power equals Corruption

Technology equals Corruption.

Unless you believe that Technology is the same as Truth, then you have committed a logical error in argument.

Science can explain how something does not exist. Science can explain how lighting cannot exist when there is no electrical charge in the air. Science explains how frozen water cannot exist at a temperature of 100 degrees. These are obviosly elemetry observations.

There is no theory of lighting. There is a theory of electricity which explains how electricity will react in a given environment. Lighting is a logical deduction from that theory. Theories exist to explain a phenomena. There is no theory about how lightning doesn't exist because the the theory of how electricity does exist already covers it. In other words, science explains how something can exist; if the requirements for that existence are not present, then neither is the phenomena. If somebody wishes to supplant a scientific theory, they cannot do so by proving it wrong; they have to do it by showing what is right.

It is my choice. And I have made it.

No. You have not. You have not applied the standards of science to your god because you do not know what the standards of science are. Perhaps, if you have read the Evo Vs. Cre, you have learned them.

Nothing can ever be 100% credeble though. Not in a fallable world. That's why faith even exists I suppose.

And scientists understand that perfectly. In science, fallacy rules. If there isn't a way to prove something wrong, then the theory isn't considered scientific.

Incidentally, your statement that nothing can be 100% credible would negate the existance of Truth, wouldn't it?

In all cases, these posts are way too long. Pick one topic, we'll resolve that one, and then we'll move on to another, or we will never get anywhere. Take your pick of whichever one you wish.