Wissenschaft und Schöpfung / Science and Creation

Posted By: jcl

Wissenschaft und Schöpfung / Science and Creation - 03/31/06 13:27

This thread is for followers of Creationism or Intelligent Design to explain their position.

However, the discussion shall take place with scientific arguments only. I think there will never be an agreement about whether the bible contradicts evolution and the Big Bang, or not. So, no "bible" arguments please.

Also, it does not matter for the discussion how many or how few scientists take Creationism seriously. So, please no "mainstream science" arguments either.

And, for obvious reasons, please refrain from "ad hominem" arguments in this thread.

This thread shall be just about what we can derive from observations in nature.

I'm opening the discussion with a little poll about the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and the becoming of life.


Posted By: ello

Re: Wissenschaft und Schöpfung / Science and Creat - 03/31/06 13:35

maybe we need to clear up, if natural evolution includes impacts from outer space object, which i would call influenced evolution
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 03/31/06 13:37

No, natural evolution does not include impacts from life carrying space objects. That would be 'influenced evolution', because the impact theories do not explain how life came into existence in the first place.
Posted By: Grimber

Re: Science and Creation - 03/31/06 14:37

i think one of the important aspects to deal with between science and creation
is in dating methodologies.

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/radiodte.htm

this artical here discusses that very subject of radio isotope dating methods and creationist arguments against the results of such methods. ( as well as many places where creationists have shot themselves in the foot in thier own arguments)
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 03/31/06 15:08

Quote:

No, I do not know what drives creationists, but I would be interested to learn it. I know many religious people but not a single creationist. I've opened another thread for continuing this discussion in a more orderly way.




There is really one chain of reasoning, and here it is:

a) They believe that evolution and an ancient earth goes against the literal biblical story of creation (it does).

b) They reason that if the Bible is wrong on that score, it may be wrong on all scores.

c) if the Bible is wrong, then there is no God, no Jesus, and no immortality in Heaven. Man dies and that's it. To many people this is unacceptable, and would cause insanity.

This is why poeple argue against evolutionary theory...it takes away their hope, the meaning in their lives.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 03/31/06 15:44

Maybe. But this thread is not about belief, as you can not discuss or argue about belief. It's about _scientific_ arguments of creationism. Young earth creationists claim, for instance, that an earth age of 6000 years is more likely than 4.5 billion years - let's hear their reasons.
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Science and Creation - 03/31/06 16:25

Ahem, with respect Johann, doesn't that make the argument one-sided?

If the creationists/IDers are not allowed to brandish their dusty old books and make wild, unqualified statements then how are they going to prove anything? The only "scientific" arguments will be refuting scientific methods. Their resons for which, far from being scientific, will take us back to book brandishing and wild statements.

The scientific position is already the result thousands of years worth of observations and know facts. There is a mountain of scientific research to back it up. So, by your criteria, "this thread shall be about scientific arguments only" the scientists have already won.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 03/31/06 17:28

Quote:

Maybe. But this thread is not about belief because you can not discuss or argue about belief. It's about _scientific_ arguments of creationism. Young earth creationists claim, for instance, that an earth age of 6000 years is more likely than 4.5 billion years - let's hear their reasons.




You may not have been asking what I think are their reasons, but it's the truth regardless.

They dont have any scientific reasons. Their argument is purely emotional. The psuedoscience arguments they do come up with are transparent, and not worth taking your time to look at.

The simple fact is, they say the Earth is 6000 years old becasue that's what Archbishop Usher said, because he calculated it from the Biblical generation lists.

They have no scientific basis for their beliefs, they just pretend there is.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 03/31/06 19:01

Quote:


c) if the Bible is wrong, then there is no God, no Jesus, and no immortality in Heaven. Man dies and that's it. To many people this is unacceptable, and would cause insanity.

This is why poeple argue against evolutionary theory...it takes away their hope, the meaning in their lives.




It's fine to argue against Creationism, but the above seems like a backbone argument that's really getting old.

For one thing its prideful. Some people are weak, some would go insane, but I wouldn't, I'm above that foolishness. But for a human with a limited existence, what is to be gained by giving up hope in an afterlife? Either the person wants to make themselves miserable, or they're just priding themselves.

But the main thing is that people do not see an afterlife as the meaning of their lives. Although the majority of Americans say they believe in an afterlife, how much does the average American even think or care about the future? Look at the meager retirements and savings. Average savings in the US was actually negative last year. People really just want to have fun in the moment. And since the Bible has plenty of rules against seemingly fun stuff, most people would rather all of it not be true. It's easier just to hang it all. People don't want the idea of judgement or of not being in control of their lives. The idea of there being a hell and from that a moral accountability could easily "takes away the fun in their lives."

So my point is really just that their are as many reasons to be emotionally opposed to the idea of an afterlife as an idea of emptiness. And since one approach requires a lot more discipline and hardship (not to mention now ridicule), I think the average human now greatly favors one over the other...

Sorry this was totally emotional and not scientific, but then neither was the original post.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 03/31/06 21:50

?
I was just explaining why people are against evolutionary theory, not why you should or shouldnt believe in an afterlife. The point is, that certain poeple are unimaginative, and have difficulty dealing with uncertainty.

They are literal-minded. The Catholic Church for instance, has long since embraced scientific evolution, because they are able to realize that bible cant be taken literally. if you take EVERYTHING in the bible literally, you run into all sorts of problems. First of all, it has many contradiction inherent in the text.

I'm sick of going on and on about this .. In all seriousness, I think most of the problems we face with creationists are about ignorance, and poor critical thinking. This is probably due to lack of education, unimaginative parents and childhood peers/teachers, and a general anti-intellectualism in the United States in particular.

I suppose there is no point in arguing about this on an internet forum, where half the poeple are lunatics. I just cant help myself, because it reflects a wider problem in America. There is a sort of retrograde madness afflicting many poeple here. They have a serious agenda, which is attempting to eliminate good science from education, to restrict people's individual rights (such as the right to have an abortion), to destroy the barrier of seperation of church and state, and so on.

Perhaps there is no more point in trying to reason with them, or educate them. It may be that there will need to be laws put in place that will finally end some this. Perhaps certain actions will have to be taken in the future, such as deprogramming, closing churches, shutting down TV evangelists, freezing accounts for large "mega-ministries", revoking broadcast licenses for religious TV stations, radio, etc.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 09:39

This is not the topic of this thread. And frankly, I think the few creationists remaining today hardly indicate the decline of civilization: 500 years ago everyone was a creationist and we managed the development of science nevertheless.

The topic of this thread and only thing I'm interested in is how creationists explain all the observations that seem to contradict them.

For instance, to make a beginning: In the poll above someone voted for a 6000 years old universe. I'd like to learn how this person would explain the stars in the sky, the red shift, the background radiation, the expansion of the universe, the distances of galaxies, and supernovae?

If the universe were created 6000 years ago, how come that we can see stars much further away than 6000 light years?
Posted By: Damocles

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 10:50

Creationists dont need explanations, they
solve all problems with a simple "It was created by God, and we shall not know
all his intentions"
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 12:11

they say God made the light coming in mid-space, to simulate an older universe. Everything because God made it that way. Dinosaurs fossils were made by God to test our faith.

you might not see this as a problem, but you dont live in the US. I dont think Civilization is going to end either though, but they are definelty messing up the intellectual climate here. There are forces aligned against science here. I'll stop posting here now, but you have to live in the US to really understand how much stupidity is going on here.
Posted By: ventilator

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 12:17

what if an almighty being created the world 6000 years ago and set up the perfect illusion for tricking us into finding evidences for big bang, evolution and so on? ...why would that being do that though? <edit> oh! matt posted the same. </edit>
Posted By: Damocles

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 12:21

I lived in the US for quite some time, and really apreciate the
more rational view on these scientific points in Germany...
Americans dont seem to recognize that these views are not really improving
interlectual properties.
Even if someone does not belive in the facts of science,
it needs to be taught in scool after all, to be able to understand how they argument.
And not just beeing ignorant like a hillbilly.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 12:21

Beleive it or not, that is what the young earth creationists say when it comes down to it. Its like the classic solipsist arguement: no can prove to me they aren't automatons controlled by an evil wizard, so there is no way I can really know if there is anyone else besides me. There is no way anyone can prove that God dint just "make it that way", to fool us, or test us. It's a completely unfalsifiable arguement.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 16:31

Quote:

This is not the topic of this thread. And frankly, I think the few creationists remaining today hardly indicate the decline of civilization: 500 years ago everyone was a creationist and we managed the development of science nevertheless.

The topic of this thread and only thing I'm interested in is how creationists explain all the observations that seem to contradict them.

For instance, to make a beginning: In the poll above someone voted for a 6000 years old universe. I'd like to learn how this person would explain the stars in the sky, the red shift, the background radiation, the expansion of the universe, the distances of galaxies, and supernovae?

If the universe were created 6000 years ago, how come that we can see stars much further away than 6000 light years?




I cant refute any of that. I only try to look at both sides of the argument because I have a lot of young earth creationist friends. Young earth creationism is not even a biblical concept. Just to briefly explain;

Genesis 1:1 states that "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth"

Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.."

Then the 6 day creation account begins from Genesis 1:3 onward.

It has always been my view that there is a long unspecified period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. A "gap" of a sizable amount of time which accounts for the dinosaurs,the age of the earth and even previous species of man.

However, the 6 day account does indeed place Adam at 6000 bc. This does not conflict with historians and archeologists placing the dawn of civilization at around 8000-10000 bc.

I do dispute the dating of civilization as older than 6000 years because of the methods used to determine it. Carbon dating can be used with some accuracy, but not precise accuracy. So I think the only real argument I would have with anyone here would be about the dating of the dawn of civilization. My question to anyone would be: hoiw do you know civilization began in 8000-10000 bc?

If any craetionist needs to know what biblical proofs I have as to why the bible agrees with the big bang and the age of the earth I would be glad to expound because I have a lot of biblical information about that subject, but I think the topic is for another thread.

So I accept the age of the earth and universe mostly, but I beleieve in a literal spontaneous re-creation and re-population of the earth at around 6000 bc. Adam was noted to be created in the "image of God" different from previous manlike creations.

Note also in Genesis 1:2 the statement "and darkness was upon the face of the waters..." implying that the first creation,or previous creations, were destroyed with a flood.

So if anyone wants to discuss the dating of the dawn of civilization I have plenty to say, however I agree with science about the age of dinos, the earth and the universe.

@Matt
Just because I disagree with science about some things does not mean I disagree about everything. I think your having trouble understanding this. I am not against science or scientist, I just dont believe evolution.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 17:25

I think it is largely undisputed that civilization began not earlier than 6000 BC. The earliest stone building artifacts date back to 8000..9000 BC, and the first cities, in Elam and Sumer, were founded about 5000 BC. This is often identified with the begin of civilization.
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 17:37

Hey Nitro, the rules are no using the bible for "evidence!" Only scientific observation. As if that book has any evidence in it. It was written by men in the dark ages, fearful and superstitious. As you would expect from the geographic location, God is modeled on a Arab despot. Yes, oh most wonderful master who art so high, I bow and lick at your feet oh lord! It's like believing in Darth Vader.

You've even got the story wrong. It opens with "In the beginning there was the word..." Then finishes something like "...and so they lived happily every after." Or was that another story? I get them confused.

Try taking an objective look at the contents of the bible. There is nothing scientific about it.

Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 17:41

The word in the beginning was another story. In fact the book Genesis was quite enlightened for that time. Aside from the Adam story it's a quite precise account of the Babylonian world model. Its author was probably an educated person.

But nevertheless, the content of the bible can indeed not be used for a scientific argument.
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 17:51

Most civilisations have their creation myths. I like the Japanese one with the world being shot out of Izanagi's great chinhoko during an incestuous encounter with his sister. I don't see what is so much more enlightened about the one in the Christian bible. In fact, it wasn't even very original. There is a much older Mesopotamian myth that is very similar.
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 18:55

so we have to deal with some sort of ancient copyright issue?! I am shocked.

Every single religion can be connected to another. They share a lot if they where "founded" at the same time.
Christianity has a big impact from the jewish religion. The islam is based a lot on the story of jesus.

The only sad thing is though all of this religions have so much in common and share the same ideals of a perfect world people still find enough reasons to cut your head off and claim some ancient writings to be their justification.

I dont doubt evolution and so far no creatonism theory was stable enough to make me think another way.

So i am curious as well, if someone has some good points he would like to share about this i would also like to hear them. Though critics need to be allowed and statements like "it is so because its the ways its ment to be or planed or is" aint very valid.

The oldes builings found that i know of is 8000 years old. Some cave paintings on walls found show stellar constilations that if we dont doubt the stellar science and our day physics are older then 30.000 years.
Some stone relicts found are dated to be older then 100.000 years. Based on the material found and the current ice age at this time they can pretty much determine the date those "tools" where made.
From there going over to the tectonic powers and the fauna and flora spread arround the globe all of this makes a lot sense.
Why do we have some sort of animal species in one part of the world and its nowhere to find in another part, even though its the exact same climatic zone or even better suitable for them.
Why do animals share so manny comon genetics/loooks/physics and have so visible degenerations and mutations and are still different. The kangoroo looks like a huge rat. From the biological view it also can be a rat without any problems. It could even act like a rat and noone would wonder

If a superpower was capable of creating such stuff as he wanted why does everything looks so connectable.

there is not a single unique creature living on this planet that doesnt share anything with other living beings (dna, structure, physics aso)

this are for me big indicators for one theory: all live developed from some source

if anything could be created with unlimited knowledge and power a simple result would be a biger ammount of variation.
Compare architecture from today and from 4999 years ago. Knowledge change construction methods. Thus unlimited knowledge would either allow perfect constructions or a huge variety.
Posted By: ICEman

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 19:01

Quote:

If a superpower was capable of creating such stuff as he wanted why does everything looks so connectable.

there is not a single unique creature living on this planet that doesnt share anything with other living beings (dna, structure, physics aso)

this are for me big indicators for one theory: all live developed from some source

if anything could be created with unlimited knowledge and power a simple result would be a biger ammount of variation.
Compare architecture from today and from 4999 years ago. Knowledge change construction methods. Thus unlimited knowledge would either allow perfect constructions or a huge variety.




And this is why I refer to whatever intelligence is responsible for this universe as a creator..as opposed to a God. It's because of the above reason that I believe it to have been or be.. a being of great, comparitively (to us) infinite knowledge, and therefore comparatively (to us) infinite power in having that... rather than it being a magnanymous, omnieverything creature that springs things into being by merely saying so.
Posted By: Neonotso

Re: Science and Creation - 04/01/06 19:34

Hi everyone, I've been away for just about the whole morning. I see you started a new topic. So, you want science to prove our creationist points? Ok. Well, I'll try to remember some of the science stuff I learned, but until then... Do you guys remember me pointing out the sun/moon distance? How about you discuss how you think your point of view can be true, with the sun/moon distance in mind?

Also guys, really if you want some good science, I keep mentioning Kent Hovind. Seriously, he has lots of evidence that's supports creationism: for free. You can watch his videos on his website: drdino.com. You only buy his videos if you want to support him and/or get the nice cases for the videos and whatnot.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 01:08

Quote:

@Matt Just because I disagree with science about some things does not mean I disagree about everything. I think your having trouble understanding this. I am not against science or scientist, I just dont believe evolution.




Sorry, if you dont accept evolution, you are against science-- there is no other explanation. Few scientific theories are as well-established, and as fundamental, as Darwinian evolution. You can't pick and choose when to believe in the scientific method. It's like saying you accept science but not Newton, and then give no real reasons. This is inherently anti-scietific.

Of course it is possible to disagree scientifically with a theory. But none of your arguments are even remotely scientific. They are emotional and irrational. This is anti-scientific. You seem to accept science only when it suits your narrow world-view.
Posted By: ICEman

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 01:18

I dont accept Darwinist evolution, but I consider myself a casual scientist.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 01:34

As said, if you dont accept evolution, you anti-scientific. It's saying you are Christian, but then not accpeting that Jesus was crucified.
Posted By: ICEman

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 02:04

:| I said I dont accept Darwinist evolution.. not that I don't believe some form of evolution took place.. just not the bacteria-to-fish-to-lizards-to-monkeys-to-man bullwater.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 03:06

But that is established scietific fact. it cant be any clearer. The lines of genetic relationship are clearly established. You just dont like it, that doesnt mean its not true.
Posted By: ICEman

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 03:21

Its a theory thats under scientific srutiny. It was accepted, but now not so much. I, on the otherhand never did..youre right.. but neither does a good part of the scientific world.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 06:11

Quote:

Maybe. But this thread is not about belief, as you can not discuss or argue about belief. It's about _scientific_ arguments of creationism.



Here are a few arguments for a "young" created earth.
I've read many of these before in "creationist" books.

EVIDENCE FROM THE GLOBE
Quote:

1 - Earth rotation. Because of solar and lunar gravitational drag forces, the spin of the earth (now about 1,000 mph [1,609 kmph]) is gradually slowing down. If our world were billions of years old, it would already have stopped turning. Or, calculating differently, a billion years ago our planet would have been spinning so fast—it would have become a pancake. So, either way, our earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old.—p. 21.

2 - Magnetic field decay. Earth's magnetic field is slowly, relentlessly lessening. Even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it is now. Only 20,000 years ago, enough heat would have been generated to liquefy the planet. Therefore, the earth cannot be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. This is an important matter, affects the entire planet, and has been measured for over 150 years.—pp. 21-23.




EVIDENCE FROM BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH
Quote:

1 - Escaping natural gas. Oil and gas are usually located in a porous and permeable rock like sandstone or limestone. Fluids and gas can easily travel through the containing rock, but more slowly pass out through the impermeable rock cap. The rate of gas escapement has been found to be far too rapid to agree with long ages. If the theory were true, all the natural gas would now be escaped.—p. 23.

2 - Oil pressure. When drillers first penetrate into oil, there is a "gusher." This is caused by high pressure in the oil vein. Analysis of surrounding rock permeability reveals that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but it has not happened. These deep rock formations and their entrapped oil cannot be older than 7,000 to 10,000 years.—pp. 23, 26.

3 - Oil seepage. If much oil seepage had occurred from out of the ocean floors, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone if the earth were 20,000 years old.—p. 26.




EVIDENCE FROM LIVING THINGS
Quote:

1 - Tree rings. Sequoias are never older than 4,000 years, yet are the oldest living thing in our world. Bristlecone pines are said to be older (over 4,000 years); however, it is now known that some years they produce a double tree ring. Therefore, the sequoias remain the oldest. Only man or flood can destroy the sequoia. It appears that climatic conditions, prior to 600 B.C., were erratic and produced difficult conditions, enabling tree-ring counts to provide longer ages than actually occurred.—pp. 29-30.




EVIDENCE FROM CIVILIZATION
Quote:

1 - Historical records. If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, we should find records extending back at least 500,000 years. (Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a million years.) But, instead, records only go back to about 2000-3500 B.C. When writing began, it was fully developed. The earliest dates are Egyptian (Manetho's king lists), but should be lowered for several reasons. Well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600 B.C.—pp. 30-31.

2 - Early Biblical records. Bible records carry us back to a Creation date of approximately 4000 B.C., with a Flood date of about 2348 B.C. Scientific facts point us toward the same dates.—pp. 31-32.

7 - Population statistics. Estimates, based on population changes, indicate that, about the year 3300 B.C., there was only one family.—p. 33.

8 - Facts vs. theories. Evolutionary estimates of the age of the earth have constantly changed and lengthened with the passing of time (it currently stands at 5 billion years). But the scientific evidence remains constant and, as new authentic evidence emerges, it only fastens down the dates even more firmly. It all points to a beginning for our planet about 6,000 years ago. Some may see it as 7,000 to 10,000 years, but the evidence points most distinctly toward a date of about 4,000 B.C. for the origin of our planet. The evidence for an early earth is not only solid, it is scientific.—pp. 34-35.




http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee3.htm

Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 08:22

Thanks for the non-bible arguments. But forgive my smiling at some of them - whowever wrote that book has probably missed a lot in school:

Earth rotation: yes, its slowing down - at the rate of 2.2 seconds every 100,000 years...

Magnetic field: as far as I've learned in school, it has changed very often in the past billions of years. The history of the magnetic field is well known and can be easily read from the orientation of magnetic minerals.

Oil and gas pressure: even though I'm no oil expert, it seems obvious to me that with equal pressure on all sides, as is the case down below, an oil or gas bubble can't expand at all - until you drill a hole to a lower-pressure region, like the surface.

Tree rings: I don't understand what you intend to prove here.

History: Modern man does not exist since millions of years, only since 200,000 years. His evolutionary predecessors, like homo habilis, lived 2 million years ago.

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

And as to the ancient writings that were fully developed - well, how would you write something with "half-developed" writing?

-------------

Besides from all the facts: Do you really believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, but the other planets, the sun or the other stars are not? Or do you also believe the same for the age of the sun and the universe?
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 12:33

Quote:

Its a theory thats under scientific srutiny. It was accepted, but now not so much. I, on the otherhand never did..youre right.. but neither does a good part of the scientific world.




no, you are completetly wrong.. where do you get this from??? The entire scietific commnuity is firmly committed to Darwinian evolution. And as I have said multiple times, all the biological sciences use Darwin as a foundation, a framework to understand everything else. Darwin is as important today as Newton was 200 years ago.

Clearly you dont know anything about the state of science. Don't believe the nonsense you read on creationist propaganda websites. No serious biologists question evolution. Instead, evolutionry theory is becoming more important and crucial than ever before.

Aren't there any poeple in the sciences on this forum that can speak to this?
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 14:10

Matt and ICEman: Off topic and against the rules of this thread. You can open another thread if you want to argue whether 99% or 100% serious biologists are "pro-evolution".

I'd like to have only specific scientific arguments here.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 15:54

Alright, theres no point anyway though, as you and I both know there are no scientific arguments for creationism.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 17:16

@ Matt,
Quote:

there are no scientific arguments for creationism.



Well okay we only have facts on our side then.

About the oil and natural gas, what we know is that oil and gas are naturally seeping, or escaping out of the earth, even if they are not drilled for. This is due to natural pressure from beneath the earth.

So, if the earth was really millions or billions of years old, then all the gas and oil would be gone by now. It would all have escaped and dissipated and would not exist now.

Now how about this scenario below?
Quote:

1 - River deltas. The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cm] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year—continually enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large. Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years (4,620 years, to be exact). If the world were 120,000 years old, that delta would extend all the way to the North Pole .—pp. 27-28.




Wow! To the north pole!!!
Okay then, I suggest that since the earth would be now WATER, that we all now go out and buy a big boat to live in.



And we should also all change our names to NOAH!
LOL
Posted By: Neonotso

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 18:04

Thanks for the science stuff Ran Man! I'd heard about some of that before, but I hadn't yet remembered it... And hey, did you guys ever think of this? Universe is compound word, "uni" and "verse". Basically a "single" "verse": Even some of our words are related to the fact that God spoke the word into existence.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 18:40



This is E.coli. E. coli has about 4,639,221 nucleotide base pairs, which code for 4,288 genes, each one of which produces an enormously complex protein machine. The E.coli is a good study subject because it represents the smallest type of self-sustainable life form. Many of the smaller bacteria are parasitic types of life forms which dont really make a good subject for the study of minimal requirements of life.(Its another subject to try to understand how these little parasites evolved)

So if E.coli represents early evolution, how in the world did it evolve to the tremendous level of complexity which it has?

Every machine must have a certain minimum number of parts for it to function, and if one part below this minimum is removed, the machine will cease to function. E.coli represents a machine which is vastly complex even to the level that there are really only a few people on earth who completely understand it, (and I have a feeling that complete knowledge of just about anything in the world is impossible at this time)so it certainly is beyond what we can understand.

However, we can use what we do understand about things, and we can take our own common sense(mixed with a lot of bias ) and come up with conclusions that make sense. So I can only give the "present state of my knowledge", next week, the "present state of my knowledge" will hopefully grow. But according to my limited knowledge, a cellular life form, a single-celled organism like the E.coli and any cell throughout any body consists of some basic parts:

1. DNA \- contains the cell's "masterplan"

2. RNA - Transports protein assembly instructions to the "protein assembly station"

3. Proteins - Which make up everything.

4. Ribosomes , enzymes , various other chaperons and protein assembly helpers.

So it is a lot like a machine or a factory. All the peices are dependent upon each other, DNA would be nothing without RNA and proteins. (Though there seems to be some mixing within the various function for certain types of cells)

So the problem of the complexity of life is a real obstacle to the theory of evolution. Various theories have been used to explain it, Panspermia being one solution, which basically states that life started elsewhere (like ello said), but that theory just displaces the essential problem. I think it is worth saying that panspermia itself was advanced by Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, Crick was one of the co-discoverers of DNA, and the complexity of the model would be extremely familiar to him.

But panspermia only takes the problem of the complexity of a cell to a different part of the universe, it doesnt directly address it. The naturalistic view is that all of this assembled rather by chance, however, even if we igonre the amazing odds against that happening, natural evolutionists still seem to ignore that a cell needs a way to take in food and biochemically process it. It also needs a way to distribute oxygen. None of these processes/functions could have evolved seperately, and none of them could have survived independently. The beginning life form is what we call: "irreducibly complex".

Irreducible complexity is found all throughout biology, yet at its most fundamental level, the cell, it is blazingly apparent.

Even if these parts and functions could have evolved (through mutation, which cannot happen), the many parts needed for life could not sit idle waiting for the other parts to evolve, because the existing ones would usually deteriorate very quickly from the effects of:

1. Dehydration

2. Oxidation

3. The action of bacteria or other pathogens.



For this reason, only an instantaneous creation of all the necessary parts as a functioning unit can produce life.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 19:11

I also think common sense is part of the scientific argument.

Evolution needs a universe to operate in. Even if we accept the age of the universe we still need to determine where the universe came from.

Quantum fluctuations explain that the universe could have been created from almost nothing , but true ex nihilo creation is not "almost nothing". There had to be time and space to begin with, the quantum fluctuations need to come from somewhere. Science still needs to figure out where time and space came from, they need to find out where the quantum fluctuations come from.

Nothing can come from nothing.

"What about God?" You say, He must have come from nothing, so therefore your logic fails there also"

That line of reasoning doesnt work for two reasons.

1)The most important reason is that it provides absolutely no answer to the question that was asked. Having someone explain the origination of God doesnt do anything to help science figure out how the universe came into existence. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, if science supposes that the universe came from nothing then they should show the proof. The proof is not in the speculation of how God came into being.

2)It is comparing apples with oranges. We are trying to determine the origins of matter,time and space. The biblical definition of God clearly states Him as a being outside of matter, time and space.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 19:33

I'm absolutely amazed by reading this. To the point of almost being sickened by some of you so called 'scientific' people. JCL, you're a good guy. You (apparently) believe in evolution without hating people who oppose your beliefs, and you don't resort to belittling them, as if it helps your point. I appreciate that.

Some of us are here to have a scientific argument, and that's what I'm hoping for. However, some of the statements on the side of 'science' are either hate-filled, or more closely resemble this 'insanity' we creationists supposedly have.

Furthermore, you assume that even scientists accept evolution as complete and utter fact as you do. They simply do not, and the more they experiment with genetics, etc, the more they find huge gaps and problems with their own theory. Which is why, to this day, while scientists study life from the perspective of evolution, they understand that evolution is starting to fail as a theory.

However, I'm not posting this to get into the discussion just yet. I still need a short time to finish formulating my thesis, because genetics is definately not a simple thing. I've been cramming my brain full these past few days.

My argument is going to be completely scientific, but what it won't do is compeletely disprove evolution. What it will do is dispell the notion that evolution is fact and that anyone can believe it based on the evidence. It will show that evidence for evolution can only be evidence for evolution if you already believe evolution works. My argument is simply intended to show what scientists already know: you must have faith in the theory to believe it. Because the real evidence simply isn't there. In fact, the more we tamper with genetics and try to prove evolution, the harder it is to believe that evolution was the catalyst for the wide variety of life on earth.

I'm not asking anyone to throw science out the window, I'm simply asking that you accept that evolution is 'junk science' and move on to finding the real origins of life. I'm against evolution not for emotional reasons, but because I feel its gotten science caught in a rut. And until materialists are willing to accept that evolution is a fallen theory, science will be unable to answer the really interesting questions about life, or at least paint an accurate picture of life as we see it today.

However, this will all be done scientifically, so no claims that I'm emotional, insane, or irrational can be made. I'm just basing my arguments off of the past experience of scientists.

I also want to state for the record what I'm referring to when I use the word evolution, because I think if we're all on the same page then this discussion will be a lot smoother. Evolution can mean a lot of different things. For my purposes I'll divide it in two and explain what each is.

materialist evolution: The theory that genetic change, probably through genetic mutations (and other changes), has led to uphill changes in species and has allowed a single celled 'creature' to change into all the living things that we can now observe on earth.

creationist evolution: Yes there is such a thing. The theory that all life on earth was created by God but allowed to change within boundaries. That animals may not extend beyond these boundaries, but are still able to adapt and lose data whenever natural selection calls for it, and that this has led to speciation but NOT to uphill evolution, or the creation of new data.

The fact of the matter is, you can say that all it takes to get wings is a bit of change in the acid, but its simply not that....simple. I'll prove, using real scientific experiments, that animals aren't allowed to evolve beyond the bounds of their original creation, and that mutations are detrimental because we're dealing with complex genetic 'stories' that random mutations simply cannot alter for the better.

I'm not asking anyone to debate this post. Just wait until I bring up my scientific thesis and then we can get started. I just wanted to bring up a few preliminary points in this post about how absolutely hateful you materialists are. Oh yeah, one more thing.

Quote:

Perhaps there is no more point in trying to reason with them, or educate them. It may be that there will need to be laws put in place that will finally end some this. Perhaps certain actions will have to be taken in the future, such as deprogramming, closing churches, shutting down TV evangelists, freezing accounts for large "mega-ministries", revoking broadcast licenses for religious TV stations, radio, etc.




This is why evolution tends to breed people like Hitler. That's not to say that evolution is responsible for Hitler, but when a theory like evolution crosses someone who is so close-minded that they aren't willing to accept that they might be wrong and that anyone who disagrees isn't as 'great' of a person as they are that's when we run into problems. People like you display more traits of insanity than creationists.

I seriously hope you were joking about this paragraph, because if you weren't then that's absolutely disgusting. I have a lot of problems with these so called 'evangelists' myself, but I'm not going to resort to fascism to remove them from society. That's not what freedom is about.

Anyway, sorry to divert from the science of this thread. I'll bring things to the down and dirty in a short while. Until then...

Oh yeah, unless you want to contest or add to my definitions of evolution, then I'm not going to discuss anything brought up in this thread outside of the arena of science. I've probably already annoyed the admins with this post as it is and I don't want to get off topic too much.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 20:14

"E.coli represents early evolution"

Another straw man arguement.. no one ever said a modern bacterium represents early evolution. It may, but then again, it may not. The earliest known lifeforms in the fossil record are things that appear to resemble blue-green algae. Also, there are many types of bacteria, and we have not discovered more than a small percent of probable existing species. Indeed, earliest lifeforms may have been no more than protiens, or a simple RNA strand, or something like a virus (although most poeple dont think most modern viruses came about until after more advanced cells).

The fact is, most very ancients lifeforms have long since died out and become extinct. The earliest primitive lifeforms are almost certainly extinct, and we havent found their traces yet. Therefore, we may never know what the first life looked like, unless we can create it ourselves. Even then, we dont know if it will be the same.

There is a lot of evidence that most of the cellular organelles are derived from more primitive organisms, that became assimilated into larger cell structures through symbiosis. Therefore, the mitochondria (the organelle in the cell that generates energy from nutrients), may have started out as an independent lifeform. This is backed up by the fact that it has it's own DNA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Either way, the idea of irreducible complexity--though we dont know how the first lifeforms developed--is simply dealt with, and is related to the refutation of the "improbability" arguement: life exists in its present form, so obviously it developed naturally that way, regardless of how improbable it may seem to you. Science can only posit natural explanations, therefore life developed naturally.

Before you call this a circular argument, we can only start from one first principle: that everything developed naturally, by means yet to be discovered. Science can deal with nothing else. If YOU want to posit supernatural explanations, you CAN NOT use science to do it; the result will be nothing more than psuedoscience. Religion and science are different things, irreconcileable, and never the twain shall meet.

What you are trying to do here, is say "evolution cant be true because such and such a problem... so the alternative is that God made all life the way it is". Ok, where do you go from there? Nowhere. That is the same as saying, "We dont understand particle physics completely, therefore, it just works that way because God made it that way, end of story"--this is not useful.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the other arguments dont really warrant mention, as they have been dealt with before, or are completely insane, such as the Missippi Delta one (who came up with that??), or even more funny, the idea that there should be records going back 500,000 years :0 ..that's called crank reasoning.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 22:27

Quote:

or even more funny, the idea that there should be records going back 500,000 years :0 ..that's called crank reasoning.




But Why? The "evolutionist" of the world must ignore certain facts in order to keep their theory alive. Why is it "crank" reasoning? We know, for example, that early man used rock carvings for art and communication, so why not earlier than the Egyptians then, huh? What about the Aztecs? Even the ancient Egyptians used "Hieroglyphics" in stone, so where are the other peoples before them??? There are no other earlier carvings!

No offense Matt, but there are no other carvings, because there were no other peoples before them, thus showing and proving that early man like evolutionist claim did not even exist. A person has to "assume" that any other prior peoples could not carve things into stone, which is a major assumption and is indeed quite illogical.
Quote:

Most of the other arguments dont really warrant mention, as they have been dealt with before, or are completely insane, such as the Missippi Delta one (who came up with that??),


Well then EXPLAIN IT!
At the rate of errosion, then after millions of years the delta would be very huge indeed! Right? Why is it that at the present rate of errosion, that it represents a few thousand years only? Why? Is it just a coincidence then?

Please don't ignore the facts of nature when assuming that certain theories are correct buddy.

FYI, We have real facts on our side and not just a few bogus scientific claims.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 22:33

Quote:

Science can deal with nothing else. If YOU want to posit supernatural explanations, you CAN NOT use science to do it; the result will be nothing more than psuedoscience. Religion and science are different things, irreconcileable, and never the twain shall meet.


I agree, by the very definition and fundamental core of science and the scientific method. Science only studys observable facts. So it would be ridiculous for science to try to prove creation or even set about on the path to prove God. We should NEVER ask science to prove the existence of God.

So what does that prove? It only proves my initial theory that science is limited. If there was a God, which we cannot really prove at this time one way or another, science would never be able to know it. That is because science is limited. However, science does a good job with what it does. It just needs to admit when it doesnt know something.It needs to understand it's limits.

Scientists who believe something which they havent proved yet are no longer scientists, they have become religious
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 22:40

Quote:

Scientists who believe something which they havent proved yet are no longer scientists, they have become religious



Now that's the absolute best quote of the thread so far.
Thanks Nitro for pointing that out to us.

Talk about "religious" fanatics, Sheesh... Haha!
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 22:46

Science will never be able to prove the existence of God. But science will most certainly be able to prove or disprove evolution.

If evolution is effectively disproved, then the only other alternative (albeit logical, abstract, philosophical, metaphysical, religious alternative) is that God spontaneously created it.

Just because an option is not a scientific one does not rule it out as an option. If its the only alternative idea, it makes no difference if it is a scientific alternative or a spiritual alternative. The only thing that is important is that it is the ONLY alternative.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 22:57

Quote:

Talk about "religious" fanatics, Sheesh... Haha!


Yes and your a good example of the unintelligent people that believe in God. You are a programmer at Intel, everyone knows only "cranks" work there. Im sure anyone could just walk in and get a job there. Rhuarc, WING, Me, you, Dan Silverman, Michaelangelo, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Einstein, Beethoven, Ghandi, Fermat, 75% of the world, we are all idiots for believing in God.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 23:17

Nitro, I think he was agreeing with you.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/02/06 23:23

LOL! I know!! I was being sarcastic! I know Ran Man personally, he is super intelligent. We have talked on the phone, etc etc. Heh heh. Funny!
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 00:58

OMG!
LOL God, these forums are too funny.

Hey, but I got 2 stars now that I've been in this thread! Hey, who did it!? I used to have 3 stars!

Oh well, some poor atheist probably got mad at me. Hehe

Can't we just share opinions without folks getting mad?
Com'on people! Let's LOVE one another!
Posted By: William

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 03:53

Quote:



But Why? The "evolutionist" of the world must ignore certain facts in order to keep their theory alive. Why is it "crank" reasoning? We know, for example, that early man used rock carvings for art and communication, so why not earlier than the Egyptians then, huh? What about the Aztecs? Even the ancient Egyptians used "Hieroglyphics" in stone, so where are the other peoples before them??? There are no other earlier carvings!





I asked a similar question to this in a previous thread. I got no response. Anyways, if indeed humans were running and about 200,000 years ago. What happened to the 194,000 years of knowledge that we know nothing about? Did we just sit there staring at a rock watching the time go by? Wheres my UFO? Seriously, we should be much much more advanced by now. This alone makes the notion of life for 200,000 years rather odd.

How did evolution generate a concious, a soul, ect.? How come some people can "hear" music and play instruments better than others, ect.?

Please answer these questions my evolutionist friends. I'm not trying to ridicule anyone, and these are rather straight forward questions...

P.S - Labeling Christianity as a road-block to intelligence in the U.S is very un-informed. Being rather young myself, the majority(90% +) of youth in the surrounding towns and areas believe when we die we'll turn into dogs or something and could'nt care less about our origins or science in general. As well, I'd say a very low percentage of the youth are religous in any regards(5-10% at most). Anyways, mabye the U.S is radically different than Canada, but over here, it's not that the youth are all un-informed Christians, it's just that they don't care and would rather have a good time then learn anything about the world and especially science.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 04:41

My 'paper' is finally finished. Its the result of about 8 hours of research (possibly more but I haven't been keeping time, I just know I've been researching since I asked Marco to wait for a response, with breaks for social get togethers and stuff), and about 5 hours of writing. I just finished writing here at 11:30 pm and I started at about 6:00 pm, I believe.

However, I'm not going to post it until tomorrow. I want to thoroughly go over it for spelling errors and sentence-logic errors, as well as do a double check on the evidence.

It may or may not be too long for the forum. In Microsoft Word, its about 9 pages long in Times New Roman text at 12 point. Probably too long, but I can always split it up.

This should at least end (once and for all) the idea that creationists are crazier than bat crap, and that we know nothing of science and instead base our arguments off of fear (emotion). But who knows, people will rationalize anything.

I don't expect to end this discussion once and for with this 'paper', I simply intend to get people thinking in this thread, to cause more discussion if you will. I want people to consider options.

I believe in God, but I always consider the possibility that evolution (materialist evolution) is true and that I'm completely wrong. I always question the existence of God, its in my nature as a curious person to wonder if God really exists. That said, I'm not a fence sitter. I do question everything, even my own beliefs, but I still hold to those beliefs as long as I know there is evidence. I have truly solid reasons for not only believing in the existence of God, but of the true nature of his creation. Tomorrow, I will present what I know to be true.

However, the reason I'm posting this is because I want people to understand where I'm coming from so there are no pointless side-arguments made. Again, I know evolution is real. The same evolution you believe in. Where our beliefs differ is that I believe this evolution cannot cause enough of a change to bring about the wide variety of animals we see on earth. That this evolution is limited by God's creation, through genetics, to be unable to bring about this kind of change. Thus proving that, to an extent, animals were created in their present form. With the exception being speciation, which I elaborate on in my 'paper.'

Anyway...
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 07:23

Quote:

Science will never be able to prove the existence of God. But science will most certainly be able to prove or disprove evolution.




Let me correct a common misunderstanding about science once and for all.

Unlike mathematics, natural science can not "prove" anything. Scientific theories can not be "proved" because a theory is just a system of rules, made by man. 100,000 observations consistent with the rules do not prove the theory, but one single inconsistent observation falsifies it.

Therefore, even if you would wait 100 million years and see a thousand new species evolve, this would not be a "proof" for evolution. However if you only once see a giant hand reach down fron heaven and place a new species on earth, it would be a valid disproof.

No scientific theory was ever proved, neither the law of gravity nor electromagnetism or whatever.

I just want to mention this because I see a lot of arguments repeating that science has not managed to prove evolution. It hasn't, and never will. So all those arguments are not scientific.

The reason for the acceptance of evolution theory was that it just is the most likely and most complete theory about the origin and development of life. As soon as any other serious theory came up, science would certainly consider it; if the other theory were more likely, science would adopt it at once.
Posted By: GhostwriterDoF

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 07:45

I would think that the nanobes should have proved that we do not know as much about life as we think we do. Of course it doesn't rewrite evolution. Funny how the creationists bring up the fact that we as humans are not animals, or are somehow above all other creatures on the planet.

As for evolution, we are surrounded by a continuous flow of an ever changing world and universe. People speak as if we can measure a God's motivations as we can measure the aeons. The folly of human arrogance. Who is to say that a billion years is not a day to a God, or Goddess?

There was certainly people running around the globe long before 6000 years ago. Early people were nomadic and did not create permanent settlements for thousands of years. The was an early age of settlements that evolved into the biblical cities and civilisations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

I thought Lucy was over 5 million years old? Hominids. If they are not apes and not people, what are they? How do they fit into creationism?
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 08:49

Yes, I'm also curious how creationism would explain all the remains of human predecessors we've found.

The history argument: The earliest huge cities (f.i. Nippur in Sumer) are about 7000..7500 years old. Why hasn't man invented writing, wheels, cities and kingdoms in the 192500 years before?

Simple answer: They were too few. Writing, wheels, cities and kingdoms became only necessary after the population reached a certain density. The Aborigines inhabited Australia since ten thousands of years, but hadn't ever changed their way of living. They just didn't need any cities or writings.

But early man left us other artifacts, like stone tools, and even artwork:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 08:51

And sadly, no one of the 6000 years believers has yet answered my question how he would then explain just the night sky. With the bare eye we can see the Andromeda galaxy. Its light needed 2 million years to reach us...
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 09:37

Quote:

And sadly, no one of the 6000 years believers has yet answered my question how he would then explain just the night sky. With the bare eye we can see the Andromeda galaxy. Its light needed 2 million years to reach us...




JCL thats simple: when God made the Universe, he made light already coming from Andromeda and all the distant objects, so that by now it would be here.

See, you can get around anything using the magic of religion. If I say, what about dinosaur fossils, they say, God planted them there to test our faith.

Quote:

This should at least end (once and for all) the idea that creationists are crazier than bat crap, and that we know nothing of science and instead base our arguments off of fear (emotion).




Sorry, the only way to do that is to accept Darwin as your personal savior.
Posted By: William

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 10:49

Quote:


Simple answer: They were too few. Writing, wheels, cities and kingdoms became only necessary after the population reached a certain density. The Aborigines inhabited Australia since ten thousands of years, but hadn't ever changed their way of living. They just didn't need any cities or writings.




Let's see, reproduction over 194,000 years would be very very high.... where did all the children run off too? There must have been huge cities as far as the eye can see. What happened to it all, as there is no trace.

Quote:

Its light needed 2 million years to reach us...




How would you actually know it's light took 2 million years to reach us? After taking 2 million years, and using the speed of light, that galaxy would be aprox. 117559095133820000000 miles away. Wow...
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 11:03

Quote:

Quote:


Simple answer: They were too few. Writing, wheels, cities and kingdoms became only necessary after the population reached a certain density. The Aborigines inhabited Australia since ten thousands of years, but hadn't ever changed their way of living. They just didn't need any cities or writings.




Let's see, reproduction over 194,000 years would be very very high.... where did all the children run off too? There must have been huge cities as far as the eye can see. What happened to it all, as there is no trace.




Since you obviously already have done the math, maybe you'd be so kind and share?
How did you find out that there has to be lots of "huge cities as far as the eye can see"...
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 11:22

Quote:

How would you actually know it's light took 2 million years to reach us? After taking 2 million years, and using the speed of light, that galaxy would be aprox. 117559095133820000000 miles away. Wow...




Almost right. It's center is even 2.5 million light years away, or about 1.5x10^19 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
Posted By: William

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 11:35

Let's simplify things a bit:

Reproduction = Population
Population = Cities
Cities = Technology

Multiple this by 194,000 years, and you have a very large amount of popultion that is potentially very advanced. I was refuting the claim that there was very little popultion for the first 194,000 years. The only way this could be if there was no reproduction, no sexuality, ect. Then again, perhaps I'm missing something and evolution states that basic genitilia wasn't developed until 6-10 thousand years ago. In that case, the low population for 194,000 years would work out... sorta.

Quote:

Almost right. It's center is even 2.5 million light years away, or about 1.5x10^19 miles.




Yes, but my question hasn't been answered. Where do you come up with the galaxy being 2.5 million light years away? Was the number just pulled up out of a hat? After looking through the wikipedia link, it seems they have distances for galaxies well beyond even this one.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 11:42

Quote:


Let's see, reproduction over 194,000 years would be very very high.... where did all the children run off too? There must have been huge cities as far as the eye can see. What happened to it all, as there is no trace.




No, sorry, this is not correct.

Rates of human reproduction are not consistent, nor is population growth the norm. In primitive, hunter-gatherer populations, populations growth is very low, even flat.

It's well known that in certain primitive societies, there are self-regulatory methods for reducing reproduction, such as a celebacy period of several years after the birth of a child (in some African tribe, like the San i think). It believed that because hunter-gatherers are usually semi-nomadic, and have no means of continous food production, that a flat population growth rate is generlally favorable.

Population growth didn't begin to increase substantially until after the development of agriculture, around 8000-9000 thousand years ago. However, even then, growth was FAR lower than it is today in the developing world. As a side note, the native Australian aborigines never developed agriculture, and so their populations remained fairly stable.
Posted By: William

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 11:53

Quote:


Population growth didn't begin to increase substantially until after the development of agriculture, around 8000-9000 thousand years ago. However, even then, growth was FAR lower than it is today in the developing world. As a side note, the native Australian aborigines never developed agriculture, and so their populations remained fairly stable.




And you know humans learned how to plant seeds 9000 years ago how? Where'd that number come from... I understand what you mean about there not being enough meat to go around so they cut back on population. This is more revolved around a tribe in the woods type of people though. People on the coast should be rather abundant in fish for a very large population. And what about chickens, cows, ect.? Yes this is a form of agriculture, but should have come more natural to the woodsman. Especially given 194,000 years humans had to learn it. Why did we magically discover agriculture 9,000 years ago? Why not 20,000 years ago, or even 21,000 years before that? Too many loose ends to tie up.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 12:02

"Agriculture (a term which encompasses farming) is the art, science or practice of producing food, feed, fiber and many other desired goods by the systematic raising of plants and animals."

This is a general definition of agriculture. While there is some evidence for sporadic agriculture earlier, it is around 8500 BC that the first evidence of large scale cultivation of crops can be found.

This evidence is found at many sites in the Middle Eastern region. Does this prove absolutely that agriculture began no sooner than this? No. But it seems very likely, especially given that the spread seems to been fairly fast.

What gave rise to this inovation? Perhaps changing climate, including warmer temperatures and increased rainfall (keep in mind, the last Ice Age ended around 10000 BC).
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 12:10

Quote:

Where do you come up with the galaxy being 2.5 million light years away? Was the number just pulled up out of a hat? After looking through the wikipedia link, it seems they have distances for galaxies well beyond even this one.




Yes. The most distant galaxies visible in the Hubble space telescope (see image below) are almost 40 _billion_ light years away. They are much further away than their light travel distance due to the expansion of the universe.



And how do we know their distances? Astronomy knows more than 30 different methods to measure the distance to a space object. In the case of the Andromeda galaxy, the used distance measurement methods were probably the Cepheid period, and supernovae light curves (I suppose).

But the simplest distance measurement method is the same as for measuring distances on earth: triangulation. If you're interested, here's a detailed description of astronomical distance measurement methods:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/distance.htm
Posted By: William

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 13:01

In both the distance measuring of space, and the agriculture issue, there is much left to speculation. None of this can be taken as pure facts. I think it's more of putting your faith in evolution in the end. I'm not speaking on biological terms as I know next to nothing about genetics, ect. But the common issues surrounding human life for over 194,000 years doesn't match up for me. So I guess i'll leave it at that... However, I do appreciate all the insight that was shared and have come out of this feeling smarter; Thanks!

P.S - That was an interesting link JCL, thanks for posting it. After looking in to the different scientific fields in space tonight, I must say, I'm rather suprised how specialized things are becoming. Theres even a field dedicated to researching stars and only stars. Neat.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 18:06

Quote:

And sadly, no one of the 6000 years believers has yet answered my question how he would then explain just the night sky. With the bare eye we can see the Andromeda galaxy. Its light needed 2 million years to reach us...


Hey, now wait a minute here!
Are we talking about the earth's creation or the creation of the entire galaxy?

The bible plainly says that "Heaven is God's throne", so God is eternal, so I'm not trying to gauge the age of the universe, but rather the creation of the earth.
http://bible.cc/acts/7-49.htm

If the "heavens" is God's throne and home, then I'm not going to pin down a 4000 year date on Him. lol

and dear conitec, I want my 3 stars back again!
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 18:51

What about Mars? When was that created? Science tells us that the planets probably formed around the sun at around the same time.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 19:19

Quote:

What about Mars? When was that created? Science tells us that the planets probably formed around the sun at around the same time.




What time would that be?

There are two (possibly more) explanations for why the stars are so far away, while we can still see them. Number one, the Bible MAY hint at the existence of the universe (without earth or life) before the creation (the kind that matters to us) was started. However, I haven't researched the text thoroughly so I don't want to speak on that too much.

There's also the theory that gravitational bending of light (and therefore time) has changed our relative motion of time. At first, I thought that theory was just a cop out, but it has some evidence to back it up. Right now we assume there is an even distribution of galaxies and matter throughout the universe, but if that weren't true, its possible that at such distances the warping of time would be so great that we would be able to witness things over trillions of lightyears or more. The only problem is that we'll probably never know for sure if stars prove or disprove a young earth until we start colonizing space. As it stands, it does shed some light on the possibility of an old earth. I don't know, and the fact of the matter is that scientists don't know for sure either.

That said, that's one example of a possible old earth where there are many examples of a possible young earth, right here on earth.

Anyway, my post is done, checked, and double checked (though its so long that there are probably some errors anyway). I will post it within just a moment, but first I have to determine if it needs to be split. Furthermore, I want to add one more disclaimer. Science can still exist without materialist evolution, so there is no contradiction. Materialist evolution is simply the end result of a presumed-to-be-true perspective on life. Materialist evolution is also unobservable, and unprovable. If something has absolutely no proof, then we can say that for now its not even a reasonable conclusion. Maybe in the future we'll find some evidence.

Also, its kind of hard for science to change their theories when they've already decided beyond the shadow of a doubt that they're correct. Which many scientists have done. Although furthermore, scientists are quick to admit that evolution is not fact, the problem that creationists have is that its taught as fact, and now people on these forums are spouting it as the ONLY possibility, which it scientifically is not.

Anyway, the paper will follow.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 19:46

Quote:

What about Mars? When was that created? Science tells us that the planets probably formed around the sun at around the same time.


Well the sun ain't very old. If it were as old as "evolutionist" claim it would be so bright now that we'd all be living in HELL fire! lol

Let me quote the site below as evidence of a young sun:
Quote:

Evolutionists maintain that life appeared on the Earth around 3.8 billion years ago. Since then, the Sun would have brightened about 25%,2 though there is some uncertainty in that figure.3 This would appear to present a temperature problem for the evolution of life and the Earth. With the current hand-wringing over global warming, one would expect that such a large difference in the solar output would have greatly increased the Earth’s temperature over billions of years. Yet most biologists and geologists believe that the Earth has experienced a nearly constant average temperature over the past 4.6 billion years, with perhaps warmer conditions prevailing early on.4 The problem of how the Sun could have increased in brightness while the Earth maintained a constant temperature is called the ‘early faint Sun paradox’.




http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/faintsun.asp


What about the case of Helium? By examing Helium we know that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Quote:

Helium diffusion
Main Article: Helium diffusion
One type of nuclear decay is the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a by-product of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time.





http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Young_earth_creationism

I want my third star back again man!
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 19:53

This post doesn’t directly address points made by evolutionists in the ‘doubters of God’s existence’ thread. I may respond to each point individually in a later post. However, I would first like to provide the evidence that supports my claims about materialist evolution’s invalidity.

Before I begin, however, I would like to say that I am a believer in evolution. However, not the belief that animals can somehow shift somewhere along the lines of phyla. Or in other words, I don’t believe the entire variety of animals on earth today was ‘evolved.’ I believe that, based on the evidence, it is apparent that kinds of animals are able to evolve to changing environments, based on their original genetics, but not gain new genetics (my claim is an observable fact, since all positive adaptations or mutations come at a loss to the gene pool).

Claim number 1:

Life can be spontaneously created from some kind of primordial soup.

Why isn’t this true? In experiments, scientists tried to recreate ‘early earth’ to get the building blocks of life to form. During the experiment, they left out oxygen. The reason being that oxygen (even the oxygen in water) breaks down molecular bonds. However, without oxygen, early life on earth would have been destroyed or broken down by ultraviolet rays from the sun because we would have no ozone.

That means life can’t begin with oxygen, and it can’t begin without it.

Either way, within this experiment they created amino acids, which are (as everyone should know) building blocks of life. However, there are left handed and right handed amino acids. Life only uses left handed amino acids, since right handed amino acids are actually something akin to a ‘poison’ to life. The problem is that naturally, amino acids will form an even mixture of left and right handed, known as a racemic mixture. This racemic mixture is non-life, by principle. The ONLY place we find only left handed amino acids are within a cell. However, we can’t have a cell unless we only have left handed amino acids. So which one came first if they both are requisites for the other’s existence?

Here’s a link to an interview with Miller who performed the experiment. I’m going to take out an excerpt real quick.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html

Q: The original study raised many questions. What about the even balance of L and D (left and right oriented) amino acids seen in your experiment, unlike the preponderance of L seen in nature? How have you dealt with that question?

A: All of these pre-biotic experiments yield a racemic mixture, that is, equal amounts of D and L forms of the compounds. Indeed, if you're results are not racemic, you immediately suspect contamination. The question is how did one form get selected. In my opinion, the selection comes close to or slightly after the origin of life. There is no way in my opinion that you are going to sort out the D and L amino acids in separate pools. My opinion or working hypothesis is that the first replicated molecule had effectively no asymmetric carbon.

For a lesson in L and D amino acid molecules, you can visit here

http://dl.clackamas.cc.or.us/ch106-05/optical.htm

Anyway, here is the next question.

Q: You are talking about some kind of pre-RNA?

A: Exactly a kind of pre-RNA. RNA has four asymmetric carbons in it. This pre-RNA must have somehow developed into RNA. There is a considerable amount of research now to try and figure out what that pre-RNA compound was, that is, what was the precursor to the RNA ribose-phosphate.

I did some research on this field and the best they can come up with for a precursor to RNA is PNA. Which, by the way, only exists synthetically. Or in other words, it doesn’t occur in nature.

The reason they want a precursor is because RNA is very unstable and most scientists agree that it wouldn’t have been able to keep from decomposing for long in a primordial world on its own. Let alone evolve into something else.

That’s without getting into the problem of how this PNA molecule formed, and then how that molecule would have led to RNA. PNA would have had to have formed RNA before DNA because PNA can’t become DNA, however that still brings us to the conclusion scientists have had about RNA being unstable.

So you can stop acting like you know life was accidentally created. Because if you know it, show scientists how you know and you can win one of those shiny medals. Based on the evidence at hand, it’s more likely that we were created than that we were spontaneously assembled, or evolved from non-living material. That doesn’t mean scientists shouldn’t speculate, speculation is what could lead to the discovery that we did evolve from non-living materials and if we have then that’s great. I want to be the first to know. But right now, it’s still just speculation and can’t be backed up with evidence.

So that’s the origin of life out of the way.


Claim number 2:

Every species on earth today (or in the past) evolved from one original self replicating cell.

Why isn’t this true? Well, this is going to get VERY lengthy, and I’m sorry for that, but there are many reasons why this can’t be true and I want to cover as many of them as possible. First I’m going to focus on some common myths or misconceptions that lead people to believe materialist evolution is true.

1 – Vestigial organs.

The easiest way to take vestigial organs out of the picture is that they really only prove devolution. If snakes really have ‘useless’ leg nubs, then they’ve lost data. We don’t see snakes spontaneously growing legs.

You can say these organs are ‘suboptimal’ but since creationism allows for devolution, that doesn’t mean these creatures were created with suboptimal organs but that they mutated downwards to their current form. So that isn’t evidence of a suboptimal designer. And that also depends on what you mean by suboptimal. If the appendix isn’t necessary for life, but still does its job of destroying bacteria that enters the digestive system, is that suboptimal? I think not. In that case, our teeth are suboptimal, but for obvious reasons I don’t think anyone will disagree with their importance.

Most or all of what scientists thought were vestigial organs actually turned out to have a purpose. The tailbone, the appendix, the muscles of the ear was all thought to prove evolution for years until their purposes were discovered.

But really it’s all beside the point when you consider that this simply demonstrates devolution. Not uphill gaining of genetic data, which is necessary if you’re going to postulate that a single cell eventually became every living thing on earth.

This evidence actually backs up the Bible, but that’s not the point of this thread. And no, I don’t believe that snakes have these ‘leg’ nubs because God cursed them. Those nubs are simply used in reproduction. But that’s getting sidetracked.

2 – Speciation

Speciation is a staple of both evolution science and creation science, believe it or not. Without speciation, Noah would have had his hands full with the Ark. But I digress. Both evolutionists and creationists can agree that speciation occurs. It’s something that we can actually see with our own eyes and with experimentation. However, the end result of speciation is where creationists and evolutionists begin to part paths. Materialists believe that speciation is proof of further, unobservable evolution through kinds of animals (that lizards can become birds). Creationists only deal with the real evidence that speciation is a natural reaction animals have to changes in environment, and that without speciation extinction would be rampant.

Let’s take a look at one of Darwin’s original observations. He went to the Galapagos Islands and there he observed many different species of finches, all with different beaks, coloration, body size, etc. From this evidence, he assumed that these finches all ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor. After all, they all were definitely finches, but they had different body types and they were also definitely separated into different species.

It was originally postulated that this wide variety of finch was the result of 1 to 5 million years of evolution.

Which is interesting, because based on recent observations of exactly how fast these finches (and all animals for that matter) adapt to their environments, scientists have had to lower the amount of time it took to centuries.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_01.html


That link shows how quickly these adaptations can take place. But I want you to notice how misleading the conclusion is. These finches became larger after the drought, much quicker than evolution allows, showing that it doesn’t take a mutation, just simple variation in the species to produce adaptations. The data for larger birds was already there to begin with, there’s no other answer. Yet the website claims this is evidence of evolution. Evolution doesn’t work on that time table. It is evolution in the sense of a change within a kind of animal…but did the finch gain anything new? Or was the bad data for smaller birds just weeded out?

These variations were already encoded in most species. However, due to environmental pressures, certain genetics are localized or specialized, and when the environment changes the birds adapted by growing smaller, etc. This shows that, outside of the evolutionist timetable, animals are able to quickly and easily adapt within their genetic range to changing environmental conditions. If this weren’t so, we could say God was a suboptimal designer because the birds, with rigid genetics, would have simply become extinct.

So does this variation in species prove the unobservable? That they evolved from some lower form? Or does it prove that they devolved from some more generalized form (which already contained the genetic data for the variations) over hundreds or perhaps thousands of years at the hand of natural selection, genetic drift, and specialization? Well…since we can observe animals adapting at a very high rate causing changes in genetics on a materialistic evolutionary scale in short periods of time, I’ll stick with the more likely answer that they were derived from something akin to a ‘master species.’

Darwin himself had this to say of the finches.

“Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.”

http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch2.html

These are the words of the founder of evolution, basically saying (whether he realized it or not) that these finches came from a more generalized finch that simply specialized to different environments. Yet people to this day still claim that these finches prove materialist evolution. This is why people even believe evolution in the first place, they see natural changes within kinds of animals, and assume that that means animals can somehow gain new data. This has NOT been observed in the natural world, so it is simply an assumption that must be made through faith alone. Not evidence.

Yes, these finches did evolve. But they evolved into finches. Nothing else. Furthermore, certain color, body size, or beak variations carried over to certain other species. This shows a common link to a more varied species of finch, or a finch with a wider variety of possible genetics. Outside pressures just hide or cleave unneeded genetics from species, thus creating new species, but still not adding new data.

Think about it for a moment. These birds have different colors, larger or smaller beaks, different body sizes, etc. But all of these natural changes occurred within the original bounds set within their DNA (through Darwin’s own words) from a single ‘master species.’ Darwin is my favorite person to use as proof against evolution. I love the guy.

3 – Mutations

In order to understand why mutations are almost always bad, and why even the ‘good’ mutations are still bad you have to understand genetics a bit. I’m not an expert, so I suggest you study beyond what I say here. However, I’ll use some metaphors to outline why mutations cannot improve creation.

Someone said on the forum that since mutations are random, they can cause anything, good or bad to happen. Someone also said that there is no filter for good or bad mutations.

There is no ‘filter’ for mutations, but apparently there is something preventing good mutations or they would actually occur. Here are some examples of ‘good’ mutations:

1). Beetles on an island stopped growing wings, and eventually became more dominant than the species with wings because they were less likely to blow off the island via wind. A loss of the genetic data required for wings is considered a ‘good’ mutation. However, we still end up with a beetle, in fact with a beetle that was less than it used to be.

2). Sickle Cell Anemia prevents Malaria. However, despite having less of a chance to get Malaria, you still have Sickle Cell Anemia. If you want to know why that’s a bad mutation, then by all means research sickle cell anemia.

(I’m going to copy and paste this one below because I’m lazy so if you notice a change in my diction (word use) that’s why).

3). Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light.

If the data is already there to live in the dark, did we really end up with anything new? Within these creatures there is a variety of genetics. One, they can live off photosynthesis, and two, they can use acetate as a carbon source. All the scientists did was force these creatures to adapt within their original genetic bounds. This is adaptation, but not on a scale that would change a single cell creature into a human over billions of years. These creatures went from being able to live in the dark, to being able to live in the dark. Nothing new is being created; they just weeded out the data that would have kept these creatures from surviving. Or in other words, they once again had to lose data to prove that somehow a single cell can evolve upwards. Why this is used as proof of materialist evolution? I’ll never know.

4). Eyeless fish that live in caves have scars where eyes would have been. Besides the fact that once again this still proves devolution, its also interesting to note that these are the same species of fish with eyes that live outside the same cave where these eyeless fish were discovered. In fact, scientists implanted a lens, from the same species of fish with an eye, and the eyeless fish began to grow eyes again. This suggests that the fish lost the eyes due to natural selection and mutation, but not the data for them. This would also explain the ‘scars’. Something similar happened in the drosophila experiment too. You might ask what the purpose of losing the eyes would be. Well, in the dark the fish would have bumped up against the walls, causing infection and eventually death. Those that mutated to lose the eyes would survive.

Don’t these adaptations that show how slight variations within bounds can cause a species branch (or evolution within a kind) really prove that animals were created by an optimal designer, who knew that every animal on earth would need the capability to adapt and change to harsh, changing environments? They certainly don’t show new genetics springing up, so there is a likely answer besides materialist evolution, whether you want to see it or not.

Furthermore, the drosophila experiments were brought up. Why would an evolutionist bring that up when it’s a known failure for the proof of materialist evolution (that is evolution that could cause a single cell to become all living things)?

I’ll give a quick recap of the back story for those of us who never heard of this experiment.

For about 60 years now, a specific fruit fly called drosophila melanogaster has been chosen to test the boundaries of evolution. It was picked specifically because they breed quickly, require little food, have lots of observable characteristics, and few chromosomes per cell relative to some animals.

So for years now scientists have been zapping it with x-rays, introducing it to chemicals, irradiating it and so forth and watching what happened to future generations. They did indeed produce a lot of interesting mutations on the poor things.

In effect, what they managed to simulate on these creatures was the equivalent of millions of years of evolution, much more time than we (humans) have even existed on the evolutionary timetable according to scientists. What did they end up with? More fruit flies. However, here are some interesting things to note about what these mutations did to the fruit flies.

1). If the flies were selectively bred for a specific mutation, and then mutated further along that line, they would become sterile. Suggesting that not only do mutations not change what the animal essentially is to begin with, they damage the genetics of that animal and they also will eventually cut off that genetic line.

For example, they bred from a parent group with 36 bristles, a child group down to 25 bristles, but shortly after that time the line died out. When they mutated and bred for more bristles the line also died out.

These bristles numbers were an average by the way, since it naturally varies.

“It was also demonstrated that levels of mutation necessary to cause significant evolution were not present in the environment and would cause sterility; e.g., in fruit flies.”

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

2). In one instance, a generation of flies were born without eyes. When they were separated and allowed to breed normally, the eyes grew back within only a few generations. Evolution doesn’t work on that time table. In fact, there is a natural defense mechanism in most cells (especially of complex animals) that protects against some kinds of mutations and will actually repair the mutations (you can look it up for yourself).

The only thing that would have prevented these eyes from coming back would be natural selection. Say, if for some reason the eyes were a hindrance to the fly.

“Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability. The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment."—Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134.

"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

It should be noted that these 400 mutations were the only ones that were actually carried on after sterility or the outright lethality of the mutations.

Furthermore, even if all 400 mutations had been combined into one specific fly, it still would have been a fly. Albeit, the fly would have been greatly reduced and damaged.

"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."—Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."—Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105.

So if there is no filter, why are all these mutations either bad, or neutral?

That’s simple. There is a kind of filter on genetic mutations, and that is the already established genetics. When you’re dealing with genetics, you can think of bases as the alphabet which spells out words (amino acids). In turn, these amino acids make sentences (genes) and these sentences are organized in paragraphs and stories.

The entire creature itself is the story of genetics. If you go into a book and randomly misspell words and rearrange sentences, is the story still going to make sense? In fact, could this random rearranging possibly even be beneficial to the overall story? This is why, when you look at the creature overall (not just amino acids, or genes) you understand why there really is a sort of filter for good or bad mutations.

When you crash a car against the wall, you don’t expect the outcome to be good. You might rearrange the pieces, but the car is going to be either hindered or destroyed. At best the car can be fixed, but it will still be a car. This is evidenced in these experiments.

In a more scientific example consider a single cell. Even the most simple of cells requires thousands of proteins to be working correctly in the right place at the right time. If you rewire one of these proteins (through genetic mutations) then the cell cannot perform its duty. This is why we get cancer, by the way (the device by which cells are told to stop dividing (or to have a purpose) gets switched off by mutations).

So, no, mutations cannot convert a cell (over millions or billions of years) into all life on earth.

Scientists have figured this out through scientific methods, not emotion or craziness. I’ll also tell you why they keep bringing up scientific examples that disprove materialistic evolution. They have already decided that evolution is true, so there’s no point in focusing on what disproves it. They’ll just try and find proof elsewhere. Furthermore, they know the layman will be unable to tell the difference between a change within kinds of animals, and materialistic evolution (ability to produce new data) so probably without realizing it they are misleading people, or just as likely misleading themselves.

Claim number 3:

Evolution takes millions of years.

Why isn’t this true? Well, the idea that evolution took millions or billions of years was born in ignorance by scientists. They had yet to observe natural changes within kinds of animals, and didn’t realize exactly how fast these changes occurred.

Researchers in Trinidad relocated guppies from a waterfall pool to previously guppy-free pools above the falls where there was only one known possible predator (the predator would only eat small guppies, leaving larger guppies safe). Future generations of the transplanted guppies adjusted to their new circumstances by growing bigger, maturing later, and having fewer and bigger offspring.

Reznick, D.N., Shaw, F.H., Rodd, F.H. and Shaw, R.G., Evaluation of the rate of evolution in natural populations of guppies (Poecilia reticulata), Science 275(5308):1934—1937, 1997.

However, it all happened so fast that it threw scientists for a loop, because their standard millions-of-years view is that the guppies would require long periods of time to adapt.

An evolutionist stated, ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years–a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record.’ Morell, V., Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, Science 275(5308):1880, 1997.

Of course, it goes without saying that these are still changes within kinds of animals. But it still debunks the idea that adaptations of such magnitude take millions of years, and goes a long way in demonstrating the preprogrammed variety inherit in all life. There are a lot more examples. For one, the finches on the Galapagos Islands were adapting so fast that scientists agreed it would have taken centuries, not millions of years, for speciation to take the finches to their present forms.

There are many more examples of this happening.

Mosquitoes in London were trapped in a subway and adaptation led to speciation within a couple of years. House mice on an island called Madeira only took 500 years to lead to speciation due to environment and other outside pressures.

These cases also back up the ‘master species’ idea.

Here’s some evidence of what I’m talking about.
As they were no longer able to interbreed with the surface bird-biting variety any more, Wieland, C., Brisk biters, Creation 21(2):41, 1999.
Britton-Davidian, J. et al., Rapid chromosomal evolution in island mice, Nature 403(6766):158, 2000.
Its interesting how, the more we learn about our world through science, the more likely creationism seems to be. This isn’t really science versus creationism, this is science versus faith. And it takes more apparent faith to believe animals evolved from a single cell that it does to believe they were created to exist in their current form with the ability to adapt to their environments.

Claim number 4:

The fossil record proves evolution.

Why isn’t this true? First and foremost is that the fossil record is simply a record of specie as they once existed. We can decide that ‘apparent’ common ancestry proves evolution, but it doesn’t prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, because many or most of these animals no longer exist on earth. Therefore, we have to find lizards with wings and assume that the presence of these wings mean they were gained.

But what exactly do we have? We have a distinct species, presumably perfectly adapted to its environment. If it wasn’t adapted to its environment, it wouldn’t have gotten that far in its evolutionary development. If it’s a distinct species, well adapted to its environment, then it really isn’t the missing link between lizards and birds. Unless of course you assume that evolution is true to begin with.

Where are the transitions of lizards with deformed limbs slowly becoming wings? The same could be said of any of these so-called ‘missing links.’ We haven’t really found an accurate record of transition, just a wholly formed species, and this somehow proves evolution. Without a true step-by-step record, everything is just an assumption based upon the predicated belief that evolution does happen on a scale of single-cell to man.

Common ancestry is inevitable, even in a world where all living things were created by God. Why? Well if something needs to fly, what else would you give it but wings? What would you have instead of a heart? In a world such as the one we live in, we are limited by our environment to features that keep us alive in such an environment. This is to be logically expected.

http://www.exn.ca/dinosaurs/story.asp?id=2000012156&name=archives

We also have to be weary when dealing with the past; otherwise mistakes like this can happen. We all know what happens when you assume.

In fact, in order to truly be able to objectively have any missing links (or in order to find missing links in a world where evolution isn’t already assumed to be true) the animal would have to be a confusion of adaptations (the archaeopteryx is believed to be able to fly, and even if it couldn’t it could still be a bird…think of chickens for example). And even then we have to question whether or not these missing link features are not simply just a loss of data once again. We need to have an actual gain of data, not just an assumed gain of data, in order to prove materialist evolution is possible.

However, it seems evolutionists disagree on whether or not the most famous of all (archaeopteryx) transitional forms is truly a ‘missing link’ to begin with. It turns out it has actual flight feathers, and that it is a true (perching) bird. Not even a dinosaur at all.

Here’s what evolutionists have to say about it.

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” Feduccia, A.; in: V. Morell, Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science 259(5096):764–65, 5 February 1993.

More evidence against the dinosaur to bird transition, namely scientists claim scales aren’t similar enough to feathers to have evolved into them.

‘At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.’ A.H. Brush, ‘On the origin of feathers’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131–142, 1996.

In fact, the more we discover about the archaeopteryx, the more it turns out it was just a bird all along. While we can’t see one of these in real life, it appears to have been able to fly (which is why it would have needed wings with flight feathers), as well as perch, which is why it had the backwards facing toes. And contrary to most artist renderings, the feathers would have covered the entire body (based on the fossil, which had ‘bumps’ covering the entire body where the feathers were connected) and so it would not have had a reptile head or body. That’s another example of misleading, by the way.

To better illustrate what I mean about the fossil record, let me come up with a fictional example. Let’s imagine all the varieties of dogs we have nowadays were suddenly wiped out and a sample of each was fossilized. What conclusions could we draw from these examples? We would see a large variety of these four legged dogs and think it must show evolution based on common ancestry. Well, in fact we know that these dogs are all actually even the same species (they can produce fertile offspring), and that they’re simply derived from wolves. However, because in this fictional example we couldn’t observe these dogs, one might be led to assume, by the variety of skeletal structures, that we were viewing a record of evolution. This is why you can never really prove evolution through the fossil record.

Before you bring up the time gap between fossils, I’ll reference you to polystrate trees. Or in other words, fossilized trees that extend through multiple layers of geological strata. I think anyone with any kind of sense will admit that these trees could not possibly have stood through millions of years of deposits, and that evolutionists will finally have to admit that not only are their dating methods wrong, but that geology actually supports the idea of a great flood.

Of course, you might be aware of the talk origins response to the polystrate trees. However, all the scenarios evolutionists come up with in which trees can be buried (in rivers during flooding) still don’t take into account how those trees are prevented from rotting, and further, how they are fossilized. This still also doesn’t address the problem of how these trees pierce geological strata assumed to be millions of years old. The strata are only millions of years old when it doesn’t have a polystrate tree through it? These evolutionist scenarios also don’t take into account that the material in some of these real life polystrate tree instances is different from observable burials. They have no answer, and this calls into question many of the foundations of materialist evolution, or what I like to call ‘pretend science.’

I’m going to end with one final analogy. The reason so many people have a hard time not believing evolution is true, is because they see small changes within kinds of animals, and assume that means these changes can build up to something better. (I am stealing this analogy, but it’s a good one).

Evolutionist’s perspective: You see a train heading north from Florida towards Chicago. You may not see the whole trip, but you know it can make it to Chicago just by interpolating the evidence. Well, what if that train were heading south towards the ocean (bad mutations)? Would it ever really make it to Chicago? All these mutations, etc, have shown scientists only one thing: that changes within kinds of animals come at a loss of data through natural selection, genetic drift, etc (even the good ones).

So you have to ask yourself this: is the train headed north to Chicago? Or is it heading south towards the ocean? Based on the evidence, it’s easy to see its definitely not heading north. And it would take a huge leap of faith to believe otherwise. You have to believe there are mutations that take place without a loss of data, without evidence, or in other words through faith.

I’m going to leave it at that. At this point, it’s already far too long, and I think I’ve already made my point many times over.
Posted By: Neonotso

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 19:56

Quote:

I want my third star back again man!




I lost my 3rd star too. I tried boosting your rating up, but you have so many votes, it didn't go up.

...I want to see that thing you've been working on Irish_Farmer.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 19:59

Please consider and EXPLAIN the following below!
I want the reasons for the exact seasons that we experience here on earth! Please explain...
Quote:

EARTH'S TILT AND ROTATION

The earth's axis of rotation is tilted 231/2 degrees relative to the perpendicular of the earth's plane of orbit. This tilt causes the four seasons. During the months of May, June, and July the northern hemisphere is pointed toward the sun, causing the hemisphere to warm and bringing on the season called summer. During November, December, and January the northern hemisphere is pointed away from the sun providing colder temperatures and the season called winter. Why is this tilt 231/2 degrees? Why not some other value?

What if the earth had no tilt, and the axis of rotation remained perpendicular to the plane of orbit? We would have no seasons and the surface temperature at any point on the earth would be the same during both July and January. The equatorial region of our planet would be intolerably hot all year and the poles would remain fairly cold. Ice would accumulate at the poles. The weather patterns would be stationary with permanently positioned warm and cold air masses. Some areas would continually be very humid while other areas would be quite arid. Only the mid-latitudes would be comfortable for human habitation and suitable for cultivation. Only about one half of our presently farmable lands could grow crops.

What would be the effect if the earth had double the present tilt? Temperature extremes between seasons would be much more pronounced. Even the mid-latitudes would have unbearable heat in the summer and frigid cold in the winter. Most of Europe and North America would experience very prolonged darkness in the winter and very prolonged daylight in the summer. Life on most of the earth's surface would become intolerable.





http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=61


If the earth did not have this exact tilt, then life would be very bad for us all. So, why is this happening? Please explain?

@neonotso
I gave you 5 stars buddy. lol
Posted By: GhostwriterDoF

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 20:03

Heya Ran Man, I somehow have 2 stars, you can have one of mine

@William, remember that a population needs a stable food source to sustain a population. Early peoples were nomadic partly because they went were the food was seasonally. Consider also that life was difficult, often dangerous and uncertain for those early nomads. Their lives were short.

There is even genetic evidence that mankind was reduced in population to a mere 2000 or so, although the time period escapes my recolection. I'm sure someone can google it up. The cause of the near extinction was suspected to be related to vulcanic activity, possibly in the great rift that appeared across Russia that occurred around the same time period.

Also the creationists are not taking into account that biblical civilations did not view time in the same way we do now. A day was considered to be sun up to sun down for instance.

As for early writing, it has only recently been discovered that the earliest examples were found in Egypt and predate the Babylonian text by a couple hundred years. In my opinion there are other examples that might represent even earlier primitive attempts at languages expressed in symbols and artwork that are not considered but should be.

What I do not understand is how modern knowledge or evolution and issues about time differences could disprove the existence of a God or Goddess or threaten religion. Why would a supreme being hide fossils in the ground to test our faith? That is just plain silly.

There are things found in science that are truely awe inspiring and have caused many a scientist to ponder the existence of a God. To see the vast wonder upon wonder that these discoveries bring to us... Should this not make your faith even more secure?

EDIT-> Never take a phone call when you are writing a post

Ran Man, the Earth's tilt changes every time we get an impact from space or have a huge earthquake. Our magnetic poles even move around from time to time and are not always as they were.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 20:24

Quote:

Please consider and EXPLAIN the following below!
I want the reasons for the exact seasons that we experience here on earth! Please explain...
Quote:

EARTH'S TILT AND ROTATION

The earth's axis of rotation is tilted 231/2 degrees relative to the perpendicular of the earth's plane of orbit. This tilt causes the four seasons. During the months of May, June, and July the northern hemisphere is pointed toward the sun, causing the hemisphere to warm and bringing on the season called summer. During November, December, and January the northern hemisphere is pointed away from the sun providing colder temperatures and the season called winter. Why is this tilt 231/2 degrees? Why not some other value?

What if the earth had no tilt, and the axis of rotation remained perpendicular to the plane of orbit? We would have no seasons and the surface temperature at any point on the earth would be the same during both July and January. The equatorial region of our planet would be intolerably hot all year and the poles would remain fairly cold. Ice would accumulate at the poles. The weather patterns would be stationary with permanently positioned warm and cold air masses. Some areas would continually be very humid while other areas would be quite arid. Only the mid-latitudes would be comfortable for human habitation and suitable for cultivation. Only about one half of our presently farmable lands could grow crops.

What would be the effect if the earth had double the present tilt? Temperature extremes between seasons would be much more pronounced. Even the mid-latitudes would have unbearable heat in the summer and frigid cold in the winter. Most of Europe and North America would experience very prolonged darkness in the winter and very prolonged daylight in the summer. Life on most of the earth's surface would become intolerable.





http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=61


If the earth did not have this exact tilt, then life would be very bad for us all. So, why is this happening? Please explain?




This is funny. You reason from 2 false premises, that the Earth's axis is stable and has always been the same, and that climate is directly related to the Earth's axis.

first, the quesiton of the axis:
"the tilt of the Earth's axis to its orbital plane (obliquity of the ecliptic) is currently 66.5 degrees, but this angle has slowly changed over time due to the action of precession"--from Wikipedia.

So the Earth's rotation has shifted over time. Your problem here is ignorance of science and bad logic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

second, the idea that climate is dependent solely on the axis:
The global climate of the Earth has chnaged radically over history, from being almost toally glaciated (the snowball earth theory), to being almost all tropical (in age of the dinosaurs). The Axis hasnt shifted much in that time, so climate must be related to something else.

Indeed it is: water. The flow of the Earth's oceans regulate the temperature.. this is why you can have palm trees in parts of Ireland. Continental drift has repeatedly altered the flow of the ocean's waters, and having a predictable effect on global climate. Sometimes the poles were frozen as they are now, sometimes they were even temperate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even if the Earth's axis hadn't changed, and was different, life may still have evolved, but it might have turned out somewhat different than it is. For instance, did you know life has been found in both the coldest and hottest parts of the Earth? Things called "archea", for instance, seem to be able to inhabit boiling water, and things live on the freezing poles. Life flourishes at the bottom the sea, in the abyssal plain, a barren, frigid region of total darkness.

Some scientists think there might possibly be life on other worlds, such as Europa or Titan. All you may need for life as we know it is probably some liquid water and otehr elements like carbon.

There might even be some form of life that require neither.. perhaps even silicon life.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 20:40

Oh, and the short answer:

Your argument doesnt pass the "so what?" test. So what if the Earth's axis hadn't been exactly as it is? It is this way, life did evolve, and that's that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This a major problem of anti-scientists: they reason from the idea that life as it is now is an inevitable "goal". Its not, life exists as it does because that's how it turned out.

This is bad thinking, and is one reason they should teach logic and rhetoric in schools, then maybe more people would learn how to think.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 21:25

The fact is that if not for the tilt of the earth, then most crops and farms would be devastated and mass-starvation would occur due to temperature changes.

Things like grapes and apples would be very rare or impossible to find if they did not die out already.

Water supplies in the hot regions would be very scarce. The earth would not be able to sustain life as we know it.

This simply points to a "creator" and thus creation. It's not a "chance" scenario as evolutionist say, because the chances of it happening by chance are null.

Quote:

Indeed it is: water. The flow of the Earth's oceans regulate the temperature..


I hear they form nice ICE at the north pole? Some regulation, sheesh...
Posted By: AndersA

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 22:20

Quote:

The fact is that if not for the tilt of the earth, then most crops and farms would be devastated and mass-starvation would occur due to temperature changes.

Things like grapes and apples would be very rare or impossible to find if they did not die out already.

Water supplies in the hot regions would be very scarce. The earth would not be able to sustain life as we know it.




Why do you think so?
They say you are very bright so maybe you would like to show us in more detail how you came to these conclusions?

How critical is the tilt angle, for instance. Unless you are just guessing, you obviously have access to an earth climate simulator so maybe you could run a simulation for +-5 degrees tilt. What does it say?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 23:01

Why are we even bothering with this debate? Its pointless. Matt, or Blatt, I want to see your responses to my lengthy post back there (also JCL and Marco, too). We need to quit running off on these wild goose chases of how important the tilt is. My post is in page 7 of this thread. Check it out.

Besides, the ice of the north pole helps regulate overall tempurature. While the specific conditions for life appearing on accident on earth are beyond comprehendible chance, there's always a rationalization for it: like its just the way it is. We're splitting hairs here. Earth's tilt can't prove God.

I want to hear some discussion. I think my post in page 7 is a good place to start since it gets right to the heart of the problem with evolution.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 23:31

Im officially sick of the discussion. The evolutionists beat us again, you cant say we didnt try. There is light at the end of the tunnel though, we cant be wrong about everything! We cant!


I want to let you guys know that I have nothing personal against you, even if you think Im dumb and crazy and my whole church is dumb and crazy...its ok, I dont mind if you think that. Are we cool? I hope so


So my fellow crazy Christians, your free to keep on discussing, but Im outta here!!!

Thank you friends & God bless. Im going back into my shell.
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 23:34

@ranman:

-->and dear conitec, I want my 3 stars back again!...

Your wish was granted from a higher power .... me
Posted By: GhostwriterDoF

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/06 23:41

Heya Irish Farmer, a couple things about your extensive post... since you took the trouble to write all that out. heh!

I think you may have overlooked cross breeding between species as a way of gaining new traits in genetics or blending genetics to arrive at a new species as a possibility. It is my belief this happened often with the dinosaurs and their predecessors.

Don't you think it is far reaching to think that since scientists failed to produce life in a lab it is not a possibility? You should see my friends refridgerator and then talk about spontaneous life

Also the scientists did not wait a million years to see what popped up. Yes I know you made a point about this and it is true that in a matter of a few years whole attributes of a species might change before our very eyes but, the species most likely will not change into a new one. However you cannot deny that over millions of years whole ages of creatures have come and gone, leaving only remnants of their existence in the creatures of today, such as the shark and the alligators.

You also seem to have a misconception of feathers and flight. There were creatures that existed that were covered in feathers but did not have wings nor did they fly. Bats as well are an example of a creature that flys and yet has no feathers. Fossils and forensics are teaching us new things all the time including these kind of misconceptions of what we think we know.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 01:01

Quote:

@ranman:

-->and dear conitec, I want my 3 stars back again!...

Your wish was granted from a higher power .... me


Hey cool! Thanks buddy!

Hey, wait a minute, THIS IS IMPORTANT!
About the earth's tilt:
Do you guys know what it means?
It means that there would be no more seasons!
If the tilt were not as it is, then the following could occur:

Russia, canada, northern europe and parts of the USA would be a forever ice cubes!

South America, Southern Africa and Australia would be a scorching desert!

Why not understand that this is a part of the creators plan for us?

And water is NOT a heat source, it just creates an "average" factor from the extremes, but it does not produce any heat. That's why we have "hot water" heaters in our homes! The SUN is the one that produces heat!

And we expect crops to grow in the conditions above? That's absolutely ludicrious.

Imagine if the earth had no tilt nor seasons?

Read about it HERE!

All I can say is you'd better thank your lucky stars, God or whatever, or else live like a frozen eskimo forever. Geez...
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 06:11

Ran, an argument like that won't do any good in a discussion like this. I don't want to rain on your parade, but you're wasting your breath if you're trying to change anyone's mind with this evidence.

Quote:

I think you may have overlooked cross breeding between species as a way of gaining new traits in genetics or blending genetics to arrive at a new species as a possibility. It is my belief this happened often with the dinosaurs and their predecessors.




That's still begging the question. If we started out at the most basic of genetics (a single cell), and cross breeding is the only option left for positive mutations, then what does the most basic of DNA cross breed with? Materialist evolution still has no starting point.

First off, if animals are too genetically dissimilar, they either won't be able to breed for physical reasons, or they won't be able to breed for genetic reasons. So we're still dealing with pretty limited occurances here. However, we have witnessed many of these cross-breeds in real life that lead to interesting results. Typically however, cross breeding is associated with organisms of a species spreading traits around to a different species.

Of course, the idea of a species is kind of awkward when it comes to science. Because, if these different species can produce fertile hybrids, are they really different species? Actually it just goes a long way in showing that both of these species are just a branch from the same Kind of animal.

There are some more interesting examples, like I've said. For instance, the zeedonk. A zebra/donkey as the name implies.

This is actually further evidence of a 'master species' that I referenced in my long post. Or the idea that these animals are genetically similar enough because they descended from a greater kind of horse that had more inherit genetic variance than these animals now have (the variance in genetics was reduced due to natural selection, and specialization and led to distinct species of animals).

By the way, if you're a fan of Napoleon Dynamite, you'll be interested to know they've actually produced real-life ligers. Which are pretty much his favorite animal (I dislike that movie greatly).

This link is from a creationist website, but if you are interested in learning about these cross-breeds then I recommend you give it a click. Its the best (and most interesting) compilation of information on cross breeds I could find on short notice.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/ligers_wolphins.asp

Cross breeding doesn't really lead to any new genetic data, however, which is required for the type of evolution talked about constantly by scientists (materialist evolution). For instance, if you mix purple orchids with white orchids, you get mixed color orchids (in other words the data for white and purple both show through, not some new data). You definately don't get orchids with feathers, however. I see what you mean, that these white orchids wouldn't have had the purple data to begin with, but if they're genetically similar enough to naturally produce hybrids then it only proves that they've come from a species that did have this variance, and that each color was specialized into a seperate species by natural selection, or some other natural device. The white and purple don't combine to create something truly, genetically new.

Cross breeding is limited by genetics, however, and so you can't say a bird mated with a lizard to give it wings (besides that you then have to wonder why lizards need to transition into a bird if the bird is already there).

I hope that explains it well enough, since I've managed to draw this post out into a novel by this point, too. Heh.

Quote:

Don't you think it is far reaching to think that since scientists failed to produce life in a lab it is not a possibility?




I think its a good thing that scientists are trying to create life in labs. For many people this will mean that God did not create life, but not for me. For me its simply a chance to gain a better understanding of life. Even if spontaneous creation of life is possible, it does not mean God did not create us, because then scientists still have to tackle the problem of materialist evolution. There will always be evidence of God, and I'm not going to be afraid of science since its a great tool for understanding the world around us.

But a lab is not the beginning of the world. Life in a test tube does not prove that it happened in a natural setting. The fact is, unless we revert the earth to its true origins (according to evolutionists) and sit around until life is spontaneously created and then evolves, we haven't disproved God. So I say, "Go ahead and create life in a lab." It will open new gateways to our understanding of life.

Quote:

However you cannot deny that over millions of years whole ages of creatures have come and gone, leaving only remnants of their existence in the creatures of today, such as the shark and the alligators.




I don't believe the earth is millions of years old, but I do believe that animals have come and gone (from the same starting point to varying other extinction points). However, it sounds like you're saying since sharks and alligators are 'primitive' they might show us evidence that we may have come from more basic life forms. That's only true if you believe we came from more primitive life forms to begin with. Since I can otherwise say, "These animals (or perhaps more generalized 'master specie') were created to be well adapted to the earth to survive." This isn't really relevant. For instance, there's so much proof against materialist evolution at this point, that sharks can fit into the creationist model of life without any problem. They were simply created (or a more generalized shark from the past was created) to be well suited to its environment. Not every animal needs to be as genetically advanced as humans. The shark is simply well created for the environment in which it lives.

Quote:

here were creatures that existed that were covered in feathers but did not have wings nor did they fly.




Fair enough, but I'd like to see these animals. Fossils, once again are tricky territory. We once thought the archaeopteryx wasn't a bird, but we know that more than likely it was simply a perching bird. Of course, we can never really say even that much for sure because these animals don't exist. Forensics are great, but they're no match for the observable. And as Darwin himself said,

"Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Of course, today we now know that any evolution that animals undergo is limited by their original genetics so this answer is simple. He didn't know that, because the theory of evolution was still in its infancy.

I believe that in his heart of hearts, Darwin was afraid that his observations were making the idea of God seem implausible. So he asked the right questions, even questioning his own ideas. Why can't scientists continue doing this nowadays, when we still lack the evidence?

Anyway, when we discover these 'missing links', we spend years and years revising our ideas about them. Usually it turns out their morphology is essential to their survival somehow, which simply shows that they are well developed, well adapted standalone species.

However, once again if all the evidence points towards materialist evolution being impossible, then can we really rely on supposedly million or billion or trillion year old relics to argue to the contrary? We can learn more by the observable world as it is today than by trying to make assumptions (unprovable) from relics of the past. The fact is, scientists make mistakes all the time. They may be the ones who fix them, but we can't count on fossils to prove something that can never be observed in nature. We need real proof.

In other words, if true transitional forms do not exist to this day, what makes us think these are transitional forms when we can't even observe the animal in its natural environment? Assumptions aren't proof.

Quote:

Bats as well are an example of a creature that flys and yet has no feathers.




I know, but in the context of the dinos-to-bird assumption scientists make, bats are irrelevant. I was focusing specifically on the birth of flight from the bird perspective. Bats are a whole other story.

Its getting late, so I hope I'm not rambling or that I'm at least making sense. I'm gonna go play some games before I head off to bed.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 09:11

As to the earth rotation: I fail to see the point here. Almost all planets have a tilted axis. And even without a tilted axis you can survive and grow crops, as people on south sea islands without any noticeable seasons would confirm to you. Air and water currents produce a balanced climate on earth even without seasons. But indeed, you would not want to live in siberia or north canada then.

The earth is favored not with its tilted axis, but with it's distance to the sun that is just suited for life - but only for a 100 million years more. Then the increased radiation from sun will render earth inhabitable.

Ran Man: do I understand it right that you believe the earth, sun and its planets are only 6000 years old, but the other stars in the universe are billions of years old?

Irish_Farmer: I'd answer your post about evolution, but at the length of almost 10 pages I'll need some time to read it first.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 10:56

Quote:

Matt, or Blatt, I want to see your responses to my lengthy post back there (also JCL and Marco, too). We need to quit running off on these wild goose chases of how important the tilt is. My post is in page 7 of this thread. Check it out.




That post is a just a long blathering of mumbo jumbo I'm not going to waste my time with beyond a few things. It's full of straw men, wrong conclusions, and frankly, complete misunderstanding of science. All of those arguments have been easily refuted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claim 1) This experiment, the Urey-miller experiment, is very old. In any case it did show that amino acids could form naturally under certain conditions. You take what is obviously evidence for the formation of life by natural means and twist it to be proof against it. Really smart, except you forgot that we aren't morons.

The fact is, we dont know exactly under what conditions life formed, there may have been oxygen, or something else in the atmosphere. Also, water can shield ultraviolet radiation far better than oxygen, so if we suppose that the life formed in water, we dont have any problems.

but if you dont believe any of that I'll make it just this: just because we dont know how life developed doesnt mean it didnt, and this certainly has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, which deals with species, not the original formation of life.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 3) "Every species on earth today (or in the past) evolved from one original self replicating cell. "

This is a straw man, because most scientists dont claim this. The current thinking is that cells became more and more complex, based on the assimilation of smaller forms.. such as the mitochondria, which may have been simpler organisms that lived symbiotically with a larger organism.

Vestigial organs dont show "devolutions", because in science there is no such thing. The loss of function is just evolution, like anything else. Furthermore, you cant just just say that, all "vestigial organs have now been shown to have a purpose". This is clearly not true(vestigial legs in snakes have no function), nor does it really explain anything, because it's known that the functions of organs can CHANGE over time.

Your section on speciation really makes no sense to me. You argue that speciation occurs, but this somehow proves that evolution doesnt occur? I think you dont understand Darwin.

Darwin concludes that the modern Galapagos finches evolved from an ancestor form themainland, that speciation can occur, and is directed by natural selection. The more favorable forms are "selected" because they allow the animal to live longer, to reproduce more succesfully, etc. Only a truly perverse mind can see this as an argument AGAINST evolution.

Your section on mutations is also deeply flawed. First, you have this idea that a beetle species that loses its wings is somehow "less than what is was originally". Nonsense: as said before, it is just different, not less or more. No organism is more or less than any other, they are all just different, and are adapted to live in whatever conditions they happen to be in.

In any case, mutation is a known, observeable fact. It occurs in all organisms that have genetic material, at the most basic level whenever a cell divides. There must be billions of mutations in a single organism's life cycle. Most mutations are indeed harmful or meaningless, and offer no selective benefit. But some must be favorable.

For instance, you bring up the sickle cell anemia trait, but you are wrong in your conclusion that this is a bad mutation. Obviously, it developed only in areas which had a risk of malaria, and since malaria is greater risk to life than sickle cell, it was a beneficial adaptation and was selected by later generations. However, when someone moves to an area where there is no malaria, then the adaptation is not beneficial, and probably will eventually dissappear in those populations that have moved. Again you twist an excellent example of evolutionary adaptation to be proof that against it. Even a child could see through this.

The point about the algae adapting to the dark, I dont see what your problem with this, excep that you seem to be using this as another straw man, becasue you state that "Why this is used as proof of materialist evolution? I’ll never know." I'm not sure that this IS used as any such proof. It does however, offer good evidence for the mechanism of mutation in evolution.

Quote:

Don’t these adaptations that show how slight variations within bounds can cause a species branch (or evolution within a kind) really prove that animals were created by an optimal designer



NO, they show no such thing. That conclusion is totally baseless, and indeed, you once again use evidence for evolution as evidence against it. Do you really think that people are that dumb? Or maybe you dont even understand your own argument..Unless this isn't your own arguement, and you just copy-and-pasted it from some retarded creationist website...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claim 3) "Evolution takes millions of years."

Another bogus claim used as a straw man, or maybe it's based on total ignorance of both language and science. Evolution is a process that is ongoing--it takes niether millions of years nor any set length of time. Evolution is happening, in a small way, with evey generation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claim 4) "The fossil record proves evolution."

*Sigh*, again with the bad premise. No scientist says that fossil record "proves" evolution. Nothing proves evolution. The fossil record does give us evidence for evolution, because it shows many cases of species that resemble other species but have differnt traits, and show some intereesting gradsations between more established forms. For instance, the dinosaur to bird progression, is quite distinct and is very compelling. In fact, so compelling that it has prompted some scientists to say there is no clear line bewteen Aves and Archosauria, and that all Aves should also be considered archosaurs.

Also of great value are the many fossils of early tetrapods, including some that may not have been able to really live on land, but still lived alsmot as fishes.

I have said that fossils dont "prove" evolutions, and this is so. However, they do give us an extremely good picture of how evolution happened over the ages. And frankly, I find it far more interesting than your stupid arguements, and apparently so do many, many other poeple, witness the huge popularity of dinosaurs and paleontology.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 11:11

@Matt

I'm really impressed that someone is ready to spend their valuable time on explaining the obvious to someone who really doesn't want to understand.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 15:39

@ Irish
I appreciate your input and agree with you, but this thread is called "Science and Creation" and is not necessarily about evolution. Also, sorry but little things like the earths tilt for seasons interest me.

I was thinking to bring up the facts of "created" nature as evidence?
Quote:

The earth is favored not with its tilted axis, but with it's distance to the sun that is just suited for life



Yes, JCL brings up an excellent point. WHY is the sun just at the right distance to make life tollerable down here?!
Please consider more facts below:

Quote:


#1 The earth is positioned just the right distance from the sun so that we recieve just the right amount of heat to support life. The other planets in our solar system are either too close to the sun or too far away.

#2 The earth rotates which gives us our 24 hour day, any appreciable change in the rate of rotation would make life on earth impossible. If the earth were to rotate one tenth its present rate all plant life would be burned up during the day or frozen at night.

#3 Temperature variations are kept within reasonable limits due to the nearly circular orbit of earth around the sun.
Temperature extremes are further moderated by the water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which produce a green house effect.

#4 The moon revolves around earth at a distance of 24000 miles causing harmless tides. If the moon were located one fifth of this distance away, the continents would be under water twice a day.

#5 The earths axis is tilted at 23 and one half degrees from the perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. this tilting combined with its revolution around the sun causes our seasons, which are assential to raising our food supplies.

#6 The ozone layer serves as a protective shield from ultraviolet radiation from the sun. without it all life would die. The atmosphere protects earth from some 20 million meteors that enter it each day, most burn up before hitting earth, if not danger to us would be immense.
The earth is the perfect physical size and mass to support life, affording a careful balance between gravitational forces and atmospheric pressure.

#7 The atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen and 20% oxygen, a crucial and delicate ratio is essential to all life forms.

#8 The earths magnetic field provides protection from harmful cosmic radiation.

#9 The earth is blessed with a bountiful supply of water, which is essential to life here.




http://home.kc.rr.com/seekandsave/uniqueearth.html

Now, why do we just assume all this happens by chance?
That is quite an "illogical" assumption, considering all other planets in the galaxy are not anything like this.

Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 16:05

Matt said:
Quote:

That post is a just a long blathering of mumbo jumbo


Translation = It was too complicated and it gave him a headache.

LOL HA! HA!! HA!!! Too funny!
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 16:34

Quote:

Now, why do we just assume all this happens by chance?
That is quite an "illogical" assumption, considering all other planets in the galaxy are not anything like this.





Well Ran Man, though you seem to evade my question about the age of the universe, your own question can very easily be answered:

Why is earth a special lucky planet? Because otherwise no one were there to complain.

Considering all factors that make earth habitable - the pamphlet you're quoting even left out a lot - there are probably about 10,000 earth like planets in our galaxy, and infinite many on the whole universe. And why do we have the unlikely luck to live on one of them? Think hard and I'm sure you'll find the answer.

If you want to look into some really interesting stuff about habitable planets - much more interesting than that boring creationist pamphlet - search with google for the "Drake Formula".
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 16:54

Quote:

Matt said:
Quote:

That post is a just a long blathering of mumbo jumbo


Translation = It was too complicated and it gave him a headache.

LOL HA! HA!! HA!!! Too funny!




Ran Man why dont you stop posting here, this is for grownups only. For one thing, you keep picking on things like "why is the sun at exactly the right distance", "why is the earth's axis at the right tilt.." and so on. Who cares? That's how it is, and life came to exist.

As I said before, even if Earth was farther from the sun, or the axis was different (as indeed it HAS been in the past) life may still have evolved, it might just have been a bit different. This is not an argument, it begs the question.

Furthermore, I found Irish Farmer's "paper" pedestrian if you must know, with no original thoughts, and some very faulty logic. The arguments were poorly constructed, and often used straw men, false premises and so on.

Irish Farmer, I suppose you mean well, but frankly you cant just keep piling bad argument on top of bad argument and hope it will turn into a good argument.

All you seem to want to do is find little things you find inconsistent about Darwinian evolution, or find things that really cant be explained, or even worse, try to attack claims that science doesnt make in the first place.

This is the same thing when someone says, "evolutionists say poeple evolved from apes..bullcrap, I'm not an ape" ..The fact is no "evolutionist" says that. We had a common ancestor with apes, that's all. They just happen to be our closest living relative...

So explain to me why we share 96% of DNA with chimpanzees? Sure it could be pure coincidence, it could be a hoax perpetrated by evil scientist atheists, they could just be wrong, etc. But the fact is, I find this far more pursuasive than anything you people have posted--most sane poeple would. Genetics are are pretty cut-and-dried.

Which leads me to another point: why is that creationists have no research or findgin of thier own tpo support thier views? It seems all they can do is try tp pick apart the work of thousands of real scientists. Why in the hell should anyone believe you? Are you somehow right, when everyone else is wrong.

Because if evolution is wrong, you have to throw out all modern phylogenies (cladistic method, etc.), genetics research, paleontology, geology, etc. What do you have left? Nothing really.. is that the kind of world you people want to live in, one where you simply CANT undertsand anything?
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 16:54

@Irish Farmer: I admit that I'm no evolution expert, but what you've posted against the origin of life seems illogical to me.

Claim: Life could not have originated on earth because it would have been destroyed by oxygen.

But all the oxygen in the atmoshere was produced by life, like algae or vegetation. So where should the oxygen to destroy life should have come from when life didn't exist yet?


Claim: Life on earth is using only left handed amino acids, while spontaenous amino acid creation produces 50% left and 50% right handed amino acids.

But life is self-reproducing and thus also reproduces it's amino handedness. And since the similarity of all DNA indicates that all life on earth is a successor of one first primitive organism, it obviously also has taken over the amino acids of that first organisms. It was just by chance left handed - it could just as well be right handed.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 17:38

Quote:


Well Ran Man, though you seem to evade my question about the age of the universe,


I agree. I'm "evading" it because I do not know. I percieve, however, that earth and our solar system is much younger than the rest of the universe. I base it on the fact that in the bible it says:
"Heaven is MY throne and earth is my footstool"

Obviously, God's throne and His place of residence comes first before our earth? But, I offer no scientific proof for this, thus the reason why I evaded it.
Quote:

So explain to me why we share 96% of DNA with chimpanzees?


I don't understand why that would prove that "Chimpanzees" are our ancestors? It is quite common in nature to have two species that share similarities, yet they do not come from each other.

A Lion is not a tiger, yet they are both cats. They also share some genetics, but that does not prove the tiger is a lion though.

The big difference between us humans and chipanzees is not the physical, but rather it is the spiritual or our intellect and soul that is within all us humans. Can't you see that??? That is the reason why we are so much more intelligent than Chimps are...

But, I strayed off topic when I said that, but it's still true. I'm trying to stay on topic here! We can say that indeed a species is similiar, but to say that it somehow "migrated" into something else is absurd.
Posted By: Neonotso

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 17:50

Quote:

I gave you 5 stars buddy. lol




Thanks! I like you, Ran Man, you seem like a nice, fun person.

But, of course, I can't just say that and end my post. Let's see... the dna thing. Well, watermelons and clouds both have a high percentage of water: That doesn't make them related.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 18:25

umm.. tha's the silliest thing I've heard yet.

Water is not DNA, DNA is not water. This makes no sense.

Having the same or similar DNA DOES mean things are related. You share DNA with your mother and father. Any DNA analyst could test you and find that you are related.

Just like because we share 96% or so of DNA with chimps, we know they are closely related. Unless of course you are not only denying evolution, but genetiics too. If so, good luck on your Nobel Prize, you've earned it.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 18:56

Quote:

why is that creationists have no research or findgin of thier own tpo support thier views? It seems all they can do is try tp pick apart the work of thousands of real scientists.




Because you're so close minded you wouldn't listen to evidence from any other source.

Quote:

Because if evolution is wrong, you have to throw out all modern phylogenies (cladistic method, etc.)




Does that scare you? Why should we stick to outdated methods just because you don't want to lose evolution? That said, we still don't have to throw anything out except materialist evolution. We don't even have to throw evolution out. Just the lies that have been perpetuated about it.

Quote:

genetics research, paleontology, geology,




Just because all of these fields either lack proof of evolution, or disprove evolution outright, doesn't mean they can't exist without evolution. For someone who is apparently so scientifically 'enlightened' you have absolutely no idea how the sciences relate to each other.

I can hardly wait for the day when the age of materialist evolution is considered the Dark Age of science.

Quote:

In any case it did show that amino acids could form naturally under certain conditions. You take what is obviously evidence for the formation of life by natural means and twist it to be proof against it.




If the experiment produced a racemic mixture, how is that proof life could spontaneously be created? You need to go back and take lessons on basic biology. Miller himself said that if all that could have been created is a racemic mixture then life would have had to be created first or at least at the same time before the amino acids could even be useful. His words, not mine.

A racemic mixture is 'POISONOUS' to life. So this experiment failed.

If you still want to believe the experiment was a success, then go ahead, but that makes you and only you.

Quote:

The fact is, we dont know exactly under what conditions life formed, there may have been oxygen, or something else in the atmosphere.




Oxygen is corrosive and breaks down molecular bonds, making it difficult for life to start randomly.

Quote:

Also, water can shield ultraviolet radiation far better than oxygen, so if we suppose that the life formed in water, we dont have any problems.




Except for hydrolysis which breaks down molecular bonds on generally the same principle as the oxygen in atmosphere (water has oxygen in it by the way). So water is corrosive too. Try again.

Quote:

but if you dont believe any of that I'll make it just this: just because we dont know how life developed doesnt mean it didnt




I know this. But just because life can randomly be created doesn't mean it was either. I just wanted to show that evolution still doesn't have a solid foundation in science. That the origin of life has to be taken on faith alone. Now let's move on to your responses to evolution.

Quote:

This is a straw man, because most scientists dont claim this. (evolution from a single cell)




Yes they do. Are you just afraid that this idea is so ridiculous that you might have to question evolution yourself?

If we didn't evolve from one cell, then I'd really love to know how a multi-cellular creature randomly got peiced together. The idea of it is simply beyond mathematical reasoning. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but then you managed to type out this disaster of a statement here:

Quote:

The current thinking is that cells became more and more complex, based on the assimilation of smaller forms.. such as the mitochondria, which may have been simpler organisms that lived symbiotically with a larger organism.




You're skipping a huge step. The original cell at some point would have had to have been the only true living thing in existence, the only true genetic material available. It would have had to evolve into these larger creatures. Furthermore, what would these mitochondria (cell power houses) have been doing floating around in great numbers without cells (you say symbiotically with a larger creature, but without the larger creature the cells couldn't eat mitochondria, and without mitochondria the basic cells wouldn't have had food to eat to evolve into the larger creatures that the mitochondria lived symbiotically with)? Let's say one mitochondria was randomly assembled in this soup, you're now saying that scientists believe this happened hundreds to thousands to millions of times? If this is the true view of evolution nowadays then it just goes to show how desperate scientists are getting. Without a cell, mitochondria cannot be replicated, by the way. Sounds like a terrible food source.

I'd be surprised if you even knew what the mitochondria was to begin with. You use the term as if its some kind of living creature. Its just one component of a cell.

Quote:

Vestigial organs dont show "devolutions", because in science there is no such thing.




No there isn't. So then let me tell you what I mean by devolution since you lack the ability to figure it out for yourself based on the context.

Devolution - the loss of genetics.

Simple. So just replace the word devolution with 'loss of genetics' in my post and reread it again. Or don't, I don't care either way, but the fact that devolution isn't a scientific term doesn't debunk my paper.

We can observe for ourselves that mutations, etc., all cause a loss of genetic data, or a damaging of the current data. I called that process devolution for simplicity's sake. You can call the loss or corruption of data whatever you want. Doesn't change a thing.

Quote:

Darwin concludes that the modern Galapagos finches evolved from an ancestor form themainland, that speciation can occur, and is directed by natural selection. The more favorable forms are "selected" because they allow the animal to live longer, to reproduce more succesfully, etc. Only a truly perverse mind can see this as an argument AGAINST evolution.




It is evolution, just not the kind you're thinking of. If they 'evolved' from a more generalized species, then that species would still be a finch. I don't think the concept is that difficult. A more genetically variable finch (with most or all of the features seen in these finches) was widdled down through natural processes like speciation, specialization, genetic drift etc until certain characteristics of it were split. This means that these finches are 'less' than the original species that made them. They didn't gain any new genetic data. So it is still not your materialist evolution. The common ancestry of these finches can be seen when certain characteristics 'carry over' between species. The fact is that there was at some point a finch that contained all of the genetic data that was branched off into these finches, meaning these finches had to evolve by LOSING A PART OF THE ORIGINAL GENETICS (my definition of devolution). Finch to finch evolution is a far cry from single-cell to man evolution. Yes, these birds did evolve, but you're not asking yourself what kind of evolution. You've just had the word evolution pounded into your head so often that you think this type of evolution proves materialist evolution.

Quote:

First, you have this idea that a beetle species that loses its wings is somehow "less than what is was originally". Nonsense: as said before, it is just different, not less or more.




I hope everyone else is reading this. This is what happens when public schools don't teach critical thinking skills. I'm not trying to insult you, but this is so logically flawed....

Let me walk you through it. Let's say a beetle contains the genetic data for wings. If that data is either corrupted or lost, or 'hidden' in some way, that can be attributed to a loss of data as far as that creature is concerned. It doesn't have wings anymore, but it didn't lose them? Where did they go? They may be hidden in its genetics, but hidden genes might as well be lost if they never become unhidden. And this still doesn't show how a single cell can become anything but a single cell.

Quote:

Nonsense: as said before, it is just different, not less or more. No organism is more or less than any other, they are all just different, and are adapted to live in whatever conditions they happen to be in.




Ah, yes. From what I've been reading lately on modern evolutionism and this appears to be there new argument against 'devolution' since the fact that we can only observe genetic losses presents a big problem for their theory.

What you've said is true, except from the perspective of genetics. Genetics CAN go up or down. There are two possibilities: the beetle can gain wings (genetics going up, or data appearing out of nowhere), or if it had them it can lose them (genetics going down). Evolution may not have an ultimate goal. But on the level of genetics, there is a line between 'more and less.'

Scientists are starting to grasp for straws here, you may not see it, but I hope people following this debate do.

Quote:

In any case, mutation is a known, observeable fact.




Duh. That's not the point. The point is whether they are helpful or harmful to the creature.

Quote:

Most mutations are indeed harmful or meaningless, and offer no selective benefit. But some must be favorable.




Why? Because otherwise you're wrong?

Quote:

The loss of function is just evolution, like anything else.




This is how 'scientists' completely turn people backwards and around until they don't know which way is up anymore. People get tricked into believing materialist evolution. This is evolution. Materialist evolution asks you to believe that these organs should first be gained, and then that they should gain function. We do not witness this.

True evolution shows that organs can lose function through genetic loss, its a fact of life. This doesn't explain how a cell can become a man.

The problem is that scientists use materialist evolution, and true evolution all within one general term: evolution. So people are never taught to tell the difference, or see that one kind of evolution helps to disprove the other. Only one type of evolution has any proof, and I'll give you a hint: its not materialist evolution.

Quote:

For instance, you bring up the sickle cell anemia trait, but you are wrong in your conclusion that this is a bad mutation.




For anyone else reading this, I'll let your own statement argue against your point.

Quote:

Obviously, it developed only in areas which had a risk of malaria, and since malaria is greater risk to life than sickle cell, it was a beneficial adaptation and was selected by later generations. However, when someone moves to an area where there is no malaria, then the adaptation is not beneficial, and probably will eventually dissappear in those populations that have moved.




http://www.sicklecelldisease.org/about_scd/

That will teach you about how terrible sickle cell anemia is. How its a plague to our gene pool. This is a positive mutation? It can kill people who have it, or at best cause terrible medical complications. It shows how the genetics of humans can be corrupted, which is evolution, but what it doesn't show is how we can evolve to something other than a human. Anyone with sickle cell is still a human, just now with a genetic disorder that is a hindrance.

Furthermore, do you know how that adaptation would disappear? Natural selection is one method (death), or the trait could just be so thinned out in the gene pool that it doesn't have the same effect. Just adding, however, to the overall deterioration of the gene pool. Great.

The problem is, is that it won't get spread out into the gene pool enough because people aren't going to travel all the way across the world to have kids. They're going to stay where they are and keep spreading it around in that area.

A truly positive mutation must add new genetic data, not corrupt the existing data. Otherwise you still haven't proved how a single cell evolved into a man or anything else for that matter. All you've demonstrated is how a terrible mutation can be used for somewhat 'good' purposes. What you're saying is that a genetic disorder that paralyzed people from the neck down would be good because then they wouldn't get into car accidents. It just shows a lack of understanding of genetics.

Quote:

The point about the algae adapting to the dark, I dont see what your problem with this, excep that you seem to be using this as another straw man, becasue you state that "Why this is used as proof of materialist evolution? I’ll never know." I'm not sure that this IS used as any such proof. It does however, offer good evidence for the mechanism of mutation in evolution.




There was no mutation, because the data already existed to adapt to darkness. Creatures exist within a range of genetics, and these creatures had a range that allowed them to live in darkness or light. Some lines of these creatures could live easily in the dark, which proved the species already had the data to live in the dark. It didn't appear out of nowhere, which once again is essential to materialist evolution. Its simple logic.

Quote:

and you just copy-and-pasted it from some retarded creationist website...




This is why I didn't use creationist sources, by the way.

Quote:

Another bogus claim used as a straw man, or maybe it's based on total ignorance of both language and science. Evolution is a process that is ongoing--it takes niether millions of years nor any set length of time. Evolution is happening, in a small way, with evey generation.




What's important is whether or not that evolution is materialist evolution or real evolution.

Its interesting how you had no response to the point I made in that 'evolution doesn't take millions of years' example. All you could do was use your default straw man point.

The fact is, scientists were wrong about how long evolution takes because they though evolution could change a lizard into a bird. Real evolution happens quickly because all it does is cause a variety within a kind of animal. That isn't what materialist evolution is, so this is a problem for people like you.

Quote:

*Sigh*, again with the bad premise. No scientist says that fossil record "proves" evolution. Nothing proves evolution.




Yet you cling to it like a life line. You have faith in something that even you admit can't be proved. Anyway...

Quote:

The fossil record does give us evidence for evolution




The fossil record is a record of living creatures perfectly adapted to their environment. Nothing else. Furthermore, since the geological strata is no longer able to accurately determine age, we have a problem with the evolutionary timeline.

Quote:

The fossil record does give us evidence for evolution, because it shows many cases of species that resemble other species but have differnt traits,




This is all fine and dandy. But as I've said, its impossible to have a 'mythical' variety of creatures on earth. Eventually, in order to survive in similar environments creatures are going to have to share traits. You can say they evolved from the same source, but since we have no current evidence of this evolution between phyla (or even a reliable method for how this could occur), you have to accept that on faith alone.

Quote:

including some that may not have been able to really live on land, but still lived alsmot as fishes.




We don't know how any of these animals lived if they're extinct, because we can't witness them in their original environment. I can come up with all sorts of theories about these animals, but it doesn't prove a thing.

Furthermore, I'm going to call BS on your fossils. I want to see the proof. I've provided proof, scientific proof, to all of my claims. The only reason you brought up these fossils is because you think you don't have to provide the evidence. How am I supposed to argue against an idea that doesn't have anything substantial to it? I'm not actually, and that's the way you like it because I've raised a lot of interesting questions that your materialist evolution can't answer.

In fact, back up all of your claims with proof. You can keep running your mouth all day long, but the fact is is that I took the time to actually research and come up with proof for my hypothesis. What have you done besides tell me how you 'feel' about evolution? Back up your claims with proof.

Quote:

So explain to me why we share 96% of DNA with chimpanzees?




How else do you describe an animal that looks pretty human? Its like you're asking to be shown some kind of miracle. Similar characteristics are logically inevitable, and it doesn't get to the root of the problem of how materialist evolution doesn't work in the first place. Let's get to the root of the problem, and then worry about the details after that.

You say a child could see through my arguments, but you have yet to prove me wrong. What's taking you so long?

Quote:

Why in the hell should anyone believe you? Are you somehow right, when everyone else is wrong.




Heh. I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm asking you to believe science. You also assume everyone believes in evolution. The fact is is that when a scientist contests materialist evolution they're labeled a creationist and brushed off like you so often do. There's an establishement trying to perpetuate materialist evolution either for good or bad ends, I don't know. But the establishment is already there, and that makes change difficult.

But its ok, I'll keep using science to guide you to the truth for as long as it takes. You'll make it someday.

But first, let's make sure we're on the same page. I'm not saying evolution is completely untrue, I'm saying that you've been shown true evolution and that its been used to trick you into thinking materialist evolution is possible.

I don't care about fossils. Give me proof of a truly positive mutation (one that doesn't subtract or corrupt genetics and adds new data (or in other words doesn't just manipulate the data the creature already has)) and I'll ask for your forgiveness and say that materialist evolution is possible.

The fact of the matter is, Matt, is that you've been tought junk science for so long that you wouldn't understand real science if it sat on top of your head. I just wish we could somehow weed out this problem, because its destroying our youth all through school.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 20:10

"umm.. tha's the silliest thing I've heard yet.

Water is not DNA, DNA is not water. This makes no sense."

It's not silly, because both species of watermelons have all that water, because their DNA says to do that!

Come out of your SPACESHIP and get down to planet earth!
Get real man! Sheesh
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 20:21

lol

I appologize for that last "annonymous" post. I'm here at work now and are in a hurry and don't have much time right now. I like to have fun on these forums and not be so serious. Too me it's more than just expressing an idea, but it is FUN! Kinda like that new video game I'm making right now with A6.

Sorry about that last annonomous post!

But, hey I like this new "annonomous" thing, because then I can post stuff and you guys cannot get mad at me, right?
Can you get MAD at me? No, right? Please don't!

Oh well gotta go now. I leave it up to my farmer friend from rural America the BIG "Irish Farmer" and also "neonotso" to straighten you guys out.

You guys are all great! SHALOM!
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/06 22:47

Quote:

The big difference between us humans and chipanzees is not the physical, but rather it is the spiritual or our intellect and soul that is within all us humans. Can't you see that??? That is the reason why we are so much more intelligent than Chimps are...




If you say so , I love irony...
(Btw. you've just agreed upon the physical similarities, well that's exactly that 96% that's similar indeed and euhmm, how exactly do you know that chimpanzees can't be intellectual or have souls? Did you ask them? Because as far as I know you can't even measure those things by humans. I personally think that the 4% difference lies in the fact that we are not as hairy as they are, that we are smarter and that we fully walk bipedal and some physical details, but basically 96% is still the same.)

Let's for example say that 5+2 = 7 (most of you would agree or be able to comprehend that, right j/k), thus 5 and 2 are needed to form 7, if 7 would be equal to the current state of a species and both 2 and 5 are species too, where 5 is the genetic predecessor of 2 and eventually 2 is the predecessor of species no. 7, then off course it's logical that all three share a lot of similar DNA code (genetic information) which also does indicate the obvious connection (5+2 = 7, remember?). So much for your illogic argument.

Cheers
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 01:04

Irish Farmer, I stand by everything i said. I'm afraid that I cant prove evolution for you, because in science, we dont "prove" theories. We can gather evidence in support of them, and weigh that evidence. We can also find evidence against a theory, and if there is enough evidence then we can "falsify" or disprove a theory. Evolution has to date not been disproven or falsified.

This is how science works. I have to say that upon reading your responses, that you havent even had basic science classes, or didn't pay any attention to the scientific method. I am beginning to feel sorry for you actually, because in a modern society, we can still produce ignorance on this level.

That you actually call evolution "junk science" is indicative of this. There is nothing "junk" about it. It may be wrong, but it is good science. Plenty of good science was shown to be false.

For instance, take the theory of "luminiferous ether". In the 19th century, particularly after Maxwell, most scientists belived that all waves had to have a medium in which to propagate. Therefore light had to have a medium too.. and since light tavels through space, space had to filled with some sort of substance, which is called the ether.

This was a logical theory. It was basically falsified by experimentation, which tried to to detect "eddies" or currents from the ether, using complicated apparatus. No such effects were detected, therefore the idea of the ether was shown to be most likely false. Eistein then showed that light didnt need a medium in which to propagate.

So therefore, to attack Darwinian evolutionary theory scientifically you need to gather evidence against it, from experimentation and observation. Then you need to weigh that evidence against the evidence for evolution.

None of your arguments constitue evidence against evolutionary theory. In fact most of your arguments are flawed inherently. Arguments alone are not generally good evidence for or against a theory. You need data that need to be gathered scientifically.

While many, many things point to Darwinian evolution, nothing points against it. All you do is make arguments against minutiae you dont really understand.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the basic ways to measure the worth of a theory is it's power to explain, and to predict. Evolution is overwhelmingly succesful at both..here are some examples:

1)Darwin predicted that the earliest human ancestors would be found in Africa, and they were.

2)Darwin predicted that would be so-called "intermediate" forms between various species, and even orders. We found this, like as in Archeaopteryx (which is intermediate between the archosaur clade and aves).

3)Darwinian evolution posits (although Darwin probably didnt even realize this) a measn to pass aquired traits to next generations. So in effect Darwin predicted Gentics, and thus DNA. It wasnt until the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work that we had a notion of this actually owrked. When watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, we then learned exactly what form genetic data takes.

4) Darwinian evolution explains and predicts the close genetic relationship between all known life, a fact that without evolutionary theory would be unexplainable. Imagine without evolutionary theory, how odd it would be to see that we shared genes with yeast or cockroaches. this may not "prove" evolutions, but a sane man would have to accept it as very strong evidence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionary theory also explains how certain adaptations become generic. For instance, how to explain flgihtless bird species, such the flightless cormorant(Nannopterum harrisi) of the Galapagos? It has close relatives on the continent that are not flightless. Why would this happen? because flightlessness seems to be advantageous when there are no predators, such as on a remote island.

Therefore, the reduction of wings must be brought about by mutation, and then selected by reproduction benefits, and it becomes generic. This is how evolution works. The loss of flight ina bird is not "devolution", it is not loss of genetics as you think ofit. They dont suddenly "lose" some genes (where'd me genes go man?). So for this bird, in this environment, the loss of wings was good thing, and the product of a benefical series of mutations.

Just like Sickle cell anemia was a good adaptation in areas where malaria was prevalent. I have sai this before, but since you are intent on being pig-headed, SICKLE CELL WAS BETTER THAN DYING OF MALARIA. There are other cases besides sickle cell, of one potentially harmful trait arising because over time, it was favorable--in a given condition. Sickle cell doesnt occur where there is no malaria. Therefore it was beneficial, because it became generic.

The fact is there is no devolution, because unfavorable traits are less liekly to be passed on. Natural selection only passes on, those traits which are favorable for survival and reproduction. The sickle cell thing just illustrates this.

You won't find "devolution" in any textbook, because it is not a scientific concept. Its a dead horse, stop beating it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To sum up, none of the things you mention in your "paper" constitute evidence AT ALL, let alone evidence against Darwinian evolution. You can only deny reality so much until you look rediculous. The reality is, that all life on Earth is related to all other life. Each species to each species, more or less. Humans are not the pinnacle, we are not unique or somehow above the cycles of life and death.

We are animals, like chimpanzees and platypuses. We are mammals, but we are also related to dinosaurs and birds too. We were once not more than a prey, now we are the preditors. But still, try telling that to the hungry aligator that walks across your path in the swamps.

Creationists seem to require certainty, a certainty that science can never provide. We can never know some things for sure, we can never explain exactly how everything happened. We can come close, and every bit of progress we make is important.

To deny evolution is to deny more than Darwin. It means you deny all biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and in fact all science, because evolution is the result of the scientific method. And by the same token, you deny everything good about mankind.

We must never give in to defeatists like you Irish, who really, deep down, despise humanity. Yes, you really hate humans beings, Homo Sapiens, the thinking man. You yearn for the swamp, like the muck in your grey and dreary soul.

You offer no evidence but your own blazing certainty that everyone is wrong and you and ONLY YOU are right. You feel you have a special knowledge, a secret knowledge. This you hold onto in the shrieking emptiness of your life. But the emptiness is you.

The world will go on, and so will science. You can't wait until Darwin is relegated to the Dark Ages? You will wait forever, and it will be in a place you Christians call Purgatory.
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 01:24

Quote:

Give me proof of a truly positive mutation (one that doesn't subtract or corrupt genetics and adds new data (or in other words doesn't just manipulate the data the creature already has))



I am still not quite sure what you are looking for. Let's try it this way: think of genetics as though it was a book. There is point mutation which changes a single character or inserts/deletes a blank space and then there are copying errors/cross-overs/etc. which copy or move words/paragraphs from one page to another. In this analogy, when you say "adds new data" you are looking for a process that appends pages ?

Quote:

I just wish we could somehow weed out this problem, because its destroying our youth all through school.


Not to mention all those nobel prize winners...

Quote:

How else do you describe an animal that looks pretty human? Its like you're asking to be shown some kind of miracle. Similar characteristics are logically inevitable, and it doesn't get to the root of the problem of how materialist evolution doesn't work in the first place.


While similar characteristics are to be expected there is no reason to expect identical genes. Given the redundancy of codons to encode amino acids (3 codons to 1 acid) you could have exactly the same individual with a genetic code that is 99% different (you just need to keep the START and STOP markers in place). So why then is there a 96% similarity if only 1% is required ?
Even if you were to reuse some genetic information from one creature to create another one, why would two different creatures like chimps and humans have the same junk DNA that no longer can produce proteins ? Evolution has no problem explaining this (common ancestor prior to speciation into chimps and humans) but creationism would need to posit a lazy or not too bright creator.

@Matt:
Quote:

Natural selection only passes on, those traits which are favorable for survival and reproduction.


Natural selection passes on traits that do not reduce the amount of offspring. Thus traits can be both neutral or favorable but not negative, in other words it selects against harmful mutations _not_ for positive ones.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 02:57

@ PHeMox
" how exactly do you know that chimpanzees can't be intellectual"

I know it because they cannot drive my Mercedes 450 SL V8 convertable.
They do not have enough "intelligence."

LOL
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 05:30

Quote:

You won't find "devolution" in any textbook, because it is not a scientific concept. Its a dead horse, stop beating it.




Heh. For someone who thought mitochondria would be a good food source for the first living cell, you focus on this so called 'true science' far too often.

Matt, its impossible to argue with you on a scientific level. When I bring science into the discussion all you do is insult and say it isn't science. If you're right, back it up. There should be an abundance of evidence on your side.

But you can't. That's why you don't. Your entire post didn't even consist of an argument, it was all aimed at trying to make ME look bad. You have nothing. The simple fact that you can rationalize sickle cell anemia as a positive mutation is disguisting and goes to show how a blind belief in evolution twists logic. You also don't show how sickle cell anemia is positive on a genetic level, but I assume this is because you understand absolutely nothing of genetics. Which you have also demonstrated time and time again.

Once again, sickle cell anemia might be 'good' in the sense that it prevents malaria, but it corrupted the genetic data on hand within humans (so genetically speaking it was bad). So its still proof against your version of evolution. Once again, you might be right that you don't die of malaria (and even that has been known to happen from time to time). But you need to try again to show how mutations like sickle cell anemia can eventually allow humans to become anything other than another human, instead of just breeding humans with a disease. Simple logic. Sickle cell anemia is evolution, its just evolution in the wrong direction. If genetics becoming corrupted isn't a good enough definition of devolution, then let's use a term you're more comfortable with: evolution. Its just evolution at the hands of a bad mutation and bad mutations (as shown in my scientific proof) either lead to death, or sterility (thus cutting off the line). Its a fact geneticists have been dealing with for a long time when trying to find proof of materialist evolution.

Quote:

To deny evolution is to deny more than Darwin. It means you deny all biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and in fact all science, because evolution is the result of the scientific method.




No...it does not. Biology would still exist, it just means that biology would work within the framework of creation, which is obviously something you're deathly afraid of or you wouldn't resort to 'psychological terrorism' in your arguments against me.

Same can be said of the other sciences.

You're trying to put me on the defensive because then you don't actually have to argue using logic and reason, both of which you do not posess.

I'll keep making one simple request: Back up your 'ideas' with proof. I've shown how it works. All you have to do is make a claim, and then provide a link to more information that proves it.

Quote:

You offer no evidence but your own blazing certainty that everyone is wrong and you and ONLY YOU are right.




Then you obviously didn't read the plethora of quotes that I pasted of scientists basically admitting that it was IMPOSSIBLE to create one mutation that could change an animal from one kind to another. The ONLY mechanism scientists have that could explain materialist evolution is one form or another of 'positive' mutations. Scientists will admit that there is no such thing, as evidenced in my posts. So...try again.

Marco, you're an intelligent guy, can you at least set him straight on this one point? That sickle cell anemia is, in fact, bad on a physical and genetic level. Whether or not it prevents malaria doesn't change the fact that it too can kill and that it was born within a genetic corruption. That said, I'm not going to think you're unintelligent if you agree with him. I'm sure you would at least have a logical reason for believing it.

Matt, look at it this way. Let's pile 100 or more of these corruptiosn of data into people and watch what happens. Eventually its going to lead to outright lethality and the end of any line that carries these mutations. You cannot argue with this logic. Who cares about malaria in the long run? You have to look at it on the genetic level, but once again its obvious you don't know the first thing about genetics or you would have figured this out on your own.

Sickle cell anemia also exists in america, where malaria isn't even really a concern. So, forget about malaria and now explain to me how having sickle cell anemia in America is helpful.

Quote:

In this analogy, when you say "adds new data" you are looking for a process that appends pages ?




Not necessarily. Since in the alphabet of genetics there are only four letters, we don't really run into the problem of spelling mistakes per se. However, let's say you look at this 'story' of genetics, I'm not saying it isn't possible to move words or paragraphs. What I'm saying is that is impossible to insert (or it might be more accurate to say remix) a paragraph/sentence made up of random words and expect an improvement. And it still has to somehow fit in with the overall story to an extent or its still harmful or outright useless.

If the means were there for this to happen, don't you think they would have discovered it somewhere within the 60 years of mutating flies? Instead, what they found was that they deleted entire paragraphs, added random words and remixed entire sentences to the loss of general fitness of the fly. Or the outright loss of internal and external organs like eyes, legs, etc.

I've provided evidence of these results in my paper, where scientists are basically bewildered by the fact that essentially millions of years worth of evolution not only didn't produce a new fly (a new creature), but they actually managed to damage most of the data that was already there (not necessarily all at once, but at one time or another just about each and every expressible gene was corrupted or outright lost).

This proves that the genetics have to be organized into these stories before hand, or they simply won't be able to randomly come up with anything that makes sense or even helps. Maybe you can challenge this point, I don't know. I think, however, that the evidence speaks for itself. Unless you're Matt, in which case the loss of organs like eyes, legs, wings, pigment, and overall loss of fitness when combined over millions of years will eventually lead to a new creature.

For people like Matt who like to believe in theories that they don't even understand I'll give a loose definition of fitness, too so that we're on the same page.

Fitness is the general ability of a creature to survive and produce offspring without unnatural aid within a natural environment.

Quote:

Not to mention all those nobel prize winners...




To me, in a world where a lie like materialist evolution (not evolution), is allowed to be perpetuated, these prizes mean nothing. But I see your point.

Quote:

While similar characteristics are to be expected there is no reason to expect identical genes. Given the redundancy of codons to encode amino acids (3 codons to 1 acid) you could have exactly the same individual with a genetic code that is 99% different (you just need to keep the START and STOP markers in place). So why then is there a 96% similarity if only 1% is required ?




edit: I no longer need clarification, I have researched and I came up with a response in the post below.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 05:46

I have a better analogy of 'devolution', that may or may not clear things up.

Yes, random mutations can never really be considered good or bad from a technical level really. However, scientists are still hasty to admit that 99% of mutations are bad. So how are they bad?

Well I think we can agree on this one definition. A mutation can be determined to be good or bad based on how it measures up to the original genetic data within that species. Fair enough? This may not be all encompassing, because how do you compare the loss of wings (if the data doesn't exist anymore) to the same species where the wings do exist. But this should encompass a good number of mutations.

We produced red blood cells which were much more efficient and in general just much better before sickle cell anemia. Therefore, since red blood cells do their job about 1000 times worse (that's just a number, not a scientific number, the point is is that it is worse) in a person with sickle cell anemia, would it not be fair to say that compared to the original data, this is bad?

Maybe that's an easier way to see how this mutation is negative? I don't know. Whatever, I'm probably just wasting my breath.

edit: Marco, don't bother elaborating on your point. I've researched your junk data hypothesis and I've come up with a response already. It involves some tricky use of numbers on the evolutionist's part, interestingly enough. That 2% number sounds REALLY really low.

However, that 2% actually represents 80 million nucleotides. Which doesn't sound quite so low anymore does it? Its all about how you present the information sometimes. Either way, I would say that's quite a difference.

Furthermore, you may have heard of Cytochrome C (its a widely studied amino acid chain)? Its something common to a lot of different kinds of life (like we have junk DNA in common with chimps), so it could (by that same logic) be compared side by side to see exactly how similar different species are to each other. Or in other words its a good tool for comparison between different species. We're only 3% different from corn. So does this mean we evolved from corn, or maybe I should say that corn and humans branched off from a similar ancestor?

One other quick point: E. Coli has a DNA molecule which is roughly 4,000,000 nucleotides long. So the difference between human and chimp (80 million nucleotides) is 20 times greater than an entire organism. And that's just considering the junk data. When you start going into the actual active data that number gets much much higher.

Sorry, just one more point (I have NOT done this research for myself nor did I formulate the argument for it): "Even a 0% difference in DNA can be a problem. In any given animal, the liver cells and skin cells contain the exact same DNA, but the liver looks and acts quite different then skin and skin looks and performs different tasks then the liver. There is information content in the differences between the liver and skin cells but it comes in the form of the ratio of proteins, enzymes… in the liver/skin cells, not in the DNA. However, the DNA dictates all the proteins in each type of cell and the differences we see between the skin and the liver should be smaller than what we see. So even with identical DNA there is a hidden information system which we do not yet fully understand." (This is not a direct quote from a book. This is a rewording of the points made in the book apparently).

Ludwig, Mark A., "Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and Evolution", American Eagle Publications, (1993) p.110-111

Further proof of this idea.

"Although all of our cells contain the same DNA, the types of proteins made differ between cell and tissue types, depending on what proteins the DNA tells the individual cell to make."

http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/about/facts/biochemistry

The point of your junk DNA argument then seems rather null.

On the surface it was a pretty good point, though. But before I finish my point, would you even have given the junk data difference a second thought if the same data had been presented differently?

To take the argument further, I could call into question the methods scientists use to even determine these percentages in the first place...but then this whole post will drag out into a whole big thing that no one reads besides.

Anyway, Matt, this is another example of lies your scientist friends are trying to spread. It should, by this time, be more readily apparent what kind of people you're allying yourselves with. They may not be intentionally misleading people, but they are misleading people.

Marco, maybe this is just me being overanalytical as usual, but I hope the sentences I chose to discuss with you here aren't offensive. I know usually I'm just overanalysing, and there's no problem in the first place, but I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you. As far as I'm concerned this is just a friendly discussion of ideas and science.

edit: I keep calling that long post a paper by accident. Just ignore that, as its obviously not a paper.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 09:43

@Irish: Besides your objections against the origin of life - which I think are illogical, see my previous post - your other argument was that good mutations seem impossible to you.

As far as I understand - please correct me if I'm wrong - you accept that a species can change by modifying or loosing information of their DNA - which you call 'devolution'. However you do not accept the possibility of adding new information to the DNA that gives a species, for instance, a new organ - that would be a 'good mutation'.

But denying this possibility is just an opinion - obviously biologists have a contrary opinion. So let's do a quick calculation about who's right, you or the biologists:

Let N1 be the number of nucleotides be affected by a 'devolution' that you admit, for instance loosing eyes, as in the cave fish example, or a change of color to adapt to a different environment. We know enough devolution examples to conclude that this happens very quick - within a few generations. So let the time span for an N1 devolution be t(N1) = 100 years.

Now let N2 be the number of nucleotides be affected by a 'good mutation', for instance making a cell of the skin light sensitive, so that the animal can feel the difference between light and darkness. You deny that this can happen because you think the probablity is too low. So let's just calculate the time span t(N2) for a good mutation.

A good mutation is certainly much less likely than 'devolution' because N2 > N1. If N2 were 2*N1, you'd have 1 good mutation in every 4 mutations. So the probability for a good mutation is 2^-(N2/N1).

If we assume that for making a cell light sensitive, you need to affect 10 times more nucleotids than for changing its color - I think this is an acceptable approximation - you get the probability:

p(N2) = 2^-10 = 1/1024 when p(N1) = 1,

and consequently, one good mutation will happen in the time span

t(N2) = t(N1) / p(N2) = 100 years * 1024 = ~100,000 years.

However this is just the time range of evolution that would very well explain all the different species on earth that evolved in 2 billion years.

Of course this is just a very raw approximation omitting many factors, but you see that even at a first glance evolution is quite possible. And when something is possible, it usually happens.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 13:30

Quote:

Matt, its impossible to argue with you on a scientific level. When I bring science into the discussion all you do is insult and say it isn't science.




JCL and I have already explained why your "scientific" arguments are illogical and unsound. You need to take a course on basic rhetoric. I wouldnt insult you if your weren't so cocksure of your delusions.

Quote:

Heh. For someone who thought mitochondria would be a good food source for the first living cell, you focus on this so called 'true science' far too often.





You are the one who ignores or doesnt understand what poeple say. I said mitochondria probably originated as seperate organisms that lived symbiotically with other cells.

"As mitochondria contain ribosomes and DNA, and are only formed by the division of other mitochondria, it is generally accepted that they were originally derived from endosymbiotic prokaryotes." --wikipedia

This shows how the modern cells could have been formed by several different organisms.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Once again, sickle cell anemia might be 'good' in the sense that it prevents malaria, but it corrupted the genetic data on hand within humans




This is why I "insult" your "science" because the devlopment of sickle cell is not a "corruption" of genetic data. It is an adaptation that was favorable under certain circumstances. Selectively favorable traits are passed on. This is by it's very nature then, a beneficial development. If it wasn't favorable, it would not have been passed on. One can argue that any trait that is widespread in a given population must have had some favorable aspect, even if now it does not.

Just because you dont like it doesnt mean it's not true. Sickle cell developed naturally, probably through mutations, and was passed on because it offered an advantage to populations who lived in malaria-prone areas. This isnt a moral question. Of course malaria still exists in certain populations, even though they don't live in malaria areas anymore. Since all blacks living in America came here within a few hundred years ago, it will take some time before sickle cell is gone. But you must know, that rates of sickle cell among American blacks is much lower than for african blacks.

Quote:

The ONLY mechanism scientists have that could explain materialist evolution is one form or another of 'positive' mutations. Scientists will admit that there is no such thing, as evidenced in my posts. So...try again.




Scientists will admit no such thing, and i dont need to "try again". The basis of evolution through natural selection is mutation. You dont have any evidence to refute this--In fact I dont think you have a clue as to what mutation is. It's not Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles--sorry, species dont mutate into other species overnight as you seem to think evolution suggests.

Quote:

Eventually its going to lead to outright lethality and the end of any line that carries these mutations. You cannot argue with this logic.




Oh i cant can I? In fact this "logic" is hokum, like all your other arguments. Sure lethal mutations happen, but guess what, they dont pass on to future generations, because that organism cant survive to reproduce. Some mutations which can be harmful can indeed be passed as recessive. This explains the many genetic diseases that exist in populations, but the diseases are very rare.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

A mutation can be determined to be good or bad based on how it measures up to the original genetic data within that species.




It's difficult to argue against ideas that are so wrong. First of all, there is no "original genetic data" within a species. This implies a first, perfect state. Such things dont exists in nature; there is no template species from which all others derive.

Second, mutations are not really "good" or "bad".. Evolution has no morality. There are only favorable, neutral, and unfavorable (or lethal) mutations. Most mutations are either unfavorable or neutral. Neutral mutations can be passed on, and may or may not be persistent. Unfavorable or lethal mutations are notgenrally passed on, and if they are, they are usually recessive as said before. Recessive unfavorable genes are only harmful if both parents have them. Since they are uncommon in the population, the chances of this happening is very rare.

However, favorable mutations can be passed, and they can become generic. Each mutation on it's own may only provide a very slight selective benefit, but over time, these changes are directed by nature.

This is the mechanism by which evolution proceeds. An animal has a mutation whcih allows slightly better processing of food, so it it is more likely to survive and reproduce... this is passed on to its offspring, and eventually there are more favorable mutations, and so on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

We're only 3% different from corn. So does this mean we evolved from corn, or maybe I should say that corn and humans branched off from a similar ancestor?




Of course we are related to corn. And we did indeed have a common ancestor, both corn and humans are Eukaryotes(one of the three major branches of life), so the last Eukaryote before the animals-plant divergence was our last common ancestor with plants.

If you didn't know this, then this just confirms that you dont understand the evolution of life on Earth.

"Cytochrome c is a highly conserved protein across the spectrum of species, found in plants, animals, and many unicellular organisms. This, along with its small size (molecular weight about 12,000 daltons), makes it useful in studies of evolutionary divergence."

Because it is highly conserved it means that over time, it indicates very distant relationships very clearly. So the apparent close relationship to corn is expected, even though the actual genetic distance is very great.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you keep referring to "materialist" evolution? There is obviously no other kind. Science is only concerned with material or natural explanations, not fairy tales for children.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 15:31

" Of course we are related to corn. And we did indeed have a common ancestor, both corn and humans are Eukaryotes"

Oh I see...
So, we need to look for a new CORN to HUMAN fossil to support the evidence.
Yeah, something half corn and half man, sounds like a plan ta me!
I'm sure it can be found somewhere...
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 15:47


Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 18:12

THERE!!! see incontrovertable proof.

Seriously, you dont need a "corn-to-human" fossil.. where do poeple get ideas like this? Get a clue.. evolution doesnt work that way.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 18:50

Quote:

THERE!!! see incontrovertable proof.



Well, you guys convinced me! I'AM A BELIEVER NOW! Wow! Humans actually did come from corn!

What athiest church services should I now attend? The baptist church of "Darwin" or the Karl Marx Pentecost Church? I need to worship Darwinism now! LOL <just joking>
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 21:28

Quote:

Marco, maybe this is just me being overanalytical as usual, but I hope the sentences I chose to discuss with you here aren't offensive. I know usually I'm just overanalysing, and there's no problem in the first place, but I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you. As far as I'm concerned this is just a friendly discussion of ideas and science.


No offense taken, in fact I like some of your examples, though I think you dodged the question of why there are identical copying errors in junk DNA.

Quote:

Well I think we can agree on this one definition. A mutation can be determined to be good or bad based on how it measures up to the original genetic data within that species. Fair enough?


I don't think that definiton helps. You are merely replacing "how good a mutation is" with "how it measures up to the previous generation". Now a definition for "measures up" would be required for this to make sense. If you define it as difference in life span or procreation rate of the new organism compared to its predecessor then you have a usable biological definition.

Quote:

Therefore, since red blood cells do their job about 1000 times worse (that's just a number, not a scientific number, the point is is that it is worse) in a person with sickle cell anemia, would it not be fair to say that compared to the original data, this is bad?


Yes, if there were no mitigating circumstances then this would indeed be bad. But in this case the mitigating circumstances are quite clear: you are more likely to have health complication due to sickle cell deformation but much less likely to die from Malaria. If sickle cell anemia suddenly appeared in a population and remained in the genepool even though there were no deaths from malaria then you would even have evidence against evolution. But that's not the case.

Quote:

However, that 2% actually represents 80 million nucleotides. Which doesn't sound quite so low anymore does it? Its all about how you present the information sometimes. Either way, I would say that's quite a difference.


I don't follow you. 80 million compared to 3000 million is rather a low. What are you trying to say?

Quote:

Furthermore, you may have heard of Cytochrome C (its a widely studied amino acid chain)? Its something common to a lot of different kinds of life (like we have junk DNA in common with chimps), so it could (by that same logic) be compared side by side to see exactly how similar different species are to each other. Or in other words its a good tool for comparison between different species. We're only 3% different from corn. So does this mean we evolved from corn, or maybe I should say that corn and humans branched off from a similar ancestor?


Sorry, but you have fallen for yet another debunked creationist lie. Here's a list of the amino acids making up cytochrome c in various organisms. Please compare corn to human and you'll see that it's far more than 3%. I didn't count it, but 3% seems more like the difference we see between humans and rhesus monkeys:
Code:
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/seq.html:
human mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
chimpanzee mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
rhesus monkey gdvekgkkif imkcsqchtv ekggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqapgysyta anknkgitwg edtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm ifvgikkkee radliaylkk atne
corn asfseappgn pkagekifkt kcaqchtvek gaghkqgpnl nglfgrqsgt tagysysaan knkavvween tlydyllnpk kyipgtkmvf pglkkpqera dliaylkeat a


Quote:

One other quick point: E. Coli has a DNA molecule which is roughly 4,000,000 nucleotides long. So the difference between human and chimp (80 million nucleotides) is 20 times greater than an entire organism. And that's just considering the junk data. When you start going into the actual active data that number gets much much higher.


I agree with the numbers, but what's your point?

Quote:

However, the DNA dictates all the proteins in each type of cell and the differences we see between the skin and the liver should be smaller than what we see. So even with identical DNA there is a hidden information system which we do not yet fully understand."



Part of that "hidden information system" is methylation- basically certain bases/nucleotides are marked with a methyl molecule which indicates that a given protein is not to be transcribed in this particular (skin, liver, etc.) cell. That's why stem cells are so interesting: they are markerless. There are other marker mechanisms in play involving the secondary structure of DNA winding but that is beyond my knowledge of biology or chemistry.

Quote:

The point of your junk DNA argument then seems rather null.


Huh?
Let me try it like this: makers of road maps are known to include fake roadnames on their products. Why do they do this? Because the underlying information (infrastrucutre) could not be copyrighted and if someone were to copy a commercial map he could claim it as his own work and it would be hard to prove him wrong. However, when as part of the forgery he copies these fake roadnames then it's clear that he did not do the mapping, but that his map is based on that of another publisher. Back to junk DNA: if there are identical base sequences in organism A and B that can not be transcribed into proteins, thus are meaningless to the organism then you could claim that organism B just so happens to have identical junk DNA (statistically unlikely) or just like in the map example you could conclude that organism B might have copied it from organism A.

Quote:

I could call into question the methods scientists use to even determine these percentages in the first place


That's probably a road to disaster We do not have the complete genome for chimpanzees but we do have the genome for parts of it and can compare the nucleotides to that of humans divide the number of variations by the genome length and you have the percentage of difference. And since this is science you (or any creationist in a biochem lab) could disprove it by showing that there are more variations then have been observed. Until then it's wishful thinking.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/06 23:13

@ ALL
The topic of this thread is "Science and Creation", so knowledge of "evolution" is not required, because that is only a theory and not science.


Anyways, consider the following scenario in arguments for a "creator" :

THE GAMESTUDIO FRAMERATE SCENARIO!

This is true Btw...
Yes, I have this lovely "Gamestudio A6" engine made by JCL and Marco that I'm using to create large outdoor terrain environments with.

But, if I make to much visible all at once, then my computer framerate starts to drop badly. So then, I must LIMIT what is viewed on the screen to help it.

Okay, so we can all agree that my 1.6 GHz computer is made by "Hewlett Packard" and also that the software, <GAMESTUDIO A6> is made by JCL, MARCO and DOUG. They CREATED it right?!

Okay, but why is it when I'm traveling in an airplane or out on the beach, that I can see for very LARGE distances and tons of objects and entities and my brain is still working great? Now, WHY IS THAT?

So, we are eager to accept that Marco and JCL made something great with gamestudio, but we struggle with the concept that our brains and bodies are not made by a creator? This is simply illogical, yes?

Why is the complicated gamestudio CREATED, but the more complex brain and body was not created, huh ???
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/06/06 00:36

You guys are getting to be too much to handle. I don't mind clashes of logic, but having to deal with three of you is getting to be too much. But since I'm going to ignore one of them anyway, that leaves only two. A little bit easier to handle.

Quote:

Besides your objections against the origin of life - which I think are illogical, see my previous post




It seems obvious you want to drop this subject. Just let me point out one thing. I'm not the one who even said this was a failed experiment in the first place. Scientists, even the one who performed it, said it was a failure. I just took the conclusion to the next logical step.

Quote:

As far as I understand - please correct me if I'm wrong - you accept that a species can change by modifying or loosing information of their DNA - which you call 'devolution'. However you do not accept the possibility of adding new information to the DNA that gives a species, for instance, a new organ - that would be a 'good mutation'.




Well...let me try and reword it and see if that gets us closer to the same page. I'm saying that within a species there is natural genetic variance. I'm assuming you're still with me on this point, because this is a well known genetic fact (or at least I've heard it to be, and not from creationists but from probably evolutionist geneticists (it was on an evolution-based website (if a website can be said to be based off evolution))). What I'm saying is that, the variety (and similarity) of some species, for instance the finches, wasn't brought about by these birds gaining any new traits. Instead, what I'm saying is the more obvious conclusion is that at one point all of these genetic traits were more generalized within a smaller number of species, maybe within even only one species. However, because even on an island there are different requirements for surviving, certain genes of this species seperated and formed their own species, albeit with less genetic variance.

My evidence for this was, for one, certain physical or behavioral characteristics carried over between species even if not much else was similar. Sure, this could be called common ancestry, but it could go either way. The other was that animals have been shown to lose genetic data when it is beneficial to them (a rare case where nature selects for a loss, hiding, or corruption of data because having the data is actually harmful in the first place). For instance, the fish with scars instead of eyes were able to grow their eyes back when a lens was implanted in early life from the same species outside the cave that still had the eyes.

This shows that evolution does happen. No one is arguing that. The fish had to change to lose the eyes, and change is evolution. However, the fish did NOT gain the eyes. And this is an important distinction. The mutation of losing the eyes was good, in that it kept the fish from dying from infection when it bumped up against the walls. But not 'good' in the sense that it gained anything new. I understand I'm not being clear on what constitutes a good mutation and a 'good' mutation. However, would you not agree that this distinction is important to the future of evolution, where for instance this fish is required to slowly gain, for instance, legs? My point is that we do see evolutionary 'shifts' in animals, but only in the sense that they are flexible enough to survive on earth, but are restricted by the bounds of the original data. This isn't change enough to grow new organs like legs and become new animals.

Quote:

But denying this possibility is just an opinion - obviously biologists have a contrary opinion.




Fair enough, but geneticists do not (maybe it could be said that geneticists are just more specialized biologists). A lot of biology is steeped in evolution, so biologists at this point are only looking for more proof of materialist evolution (forgive my use of the word materialist, I simply don't know any other way to put it, and there is an important distinction). Its ok, even from my creationist viewpoint, that biologists are only trying to find evidence of materialist evolution. As I've said, I'm all for anything that leads to a better understand of life. However, when they find evidence that contradicts their viewpoint, it should be presented FAIRLY to the public, not in a manner that misleads the layman.

However, geneticists have been trying for a LONG time to find some working mechanism for a change in kinds of animals. They haven't found it. And they've also found that there is something stopping these 'positive' or 'new' mutations from occuring. My hypothesis was that this is because the original genetics are in place and they are the standard upon which mutations find themselves unable to compete with. Which is why we don't see mutations that change what an animal essentially is to begin with except by confusing or hiding or completely losing that data altogether. Which is expressed in the creature through mutations that usually lead to a general loss of fitness.

If mutations are so good for creatures to become something else, why do cells have natural defense mechanisms (albeit, defenses that don't work 100%) to reverse or prevent these mutations? I'm seriously just asking, I'm not really sure myself. I'd like to say that these mechanisms show mutations are always bad, but I can't draw that conclusion at this time.


Your equation was great and all, but where are you getting these numbers from? edit: I shouldn't say that, because it makes me sound ignorant. What I mean is that your idea of what constitutes the chances is highly askew. For instance, if I say a positive mutation might occur once every ten mutationts (for instance), and we cause 400+ mutations in one species alone and not one of them is positive then I might have to re-evaluate my equation.

Furthermore, you're not adding in all of the variables. Your equation might work if all of the nucleotides were just sitting in a big pool, but they're organized into acids and so on up the chain, and so you have to take into account what mutations can effect, and how much of these groupings they can affect at once.

I'm not going to blather on about mutations, I'd rather use some helpful examples.

sickle-cell disease The replacement of A by T at the 17th nucleotide of the gene for the beta chain of hemoglobin changes the codon GAG (for glutamic acid) to GTG (which encodes valine). Thus the 6th amino acid in the chain becomes valine instead of glutamic acid.

So, if the amino acids spell out sentences (genes), it could be said (based on the evidence) that all of these words have to make some kind of metaphorical 'grammatical' sense or it affects the gene. You're talking about the difference between order and disorder. Changing an amino acid causes disorder, because we're not dealing simply with nucleotides, we're dealing with a pre-existing order of sentences and this order goes up and up. I'm simply saying that you have to look at the big picture to understand why these mutations can't physically (as in physics) be good. Because in turn these genes lead to proteins, and thousands of these proteins must be working correctly at the same time in order for the cell to function properly. So on the level of nucleotides, yeah we can create just about anything, but when you order enough 'just about anythings' into a an arrangement that makes sense, and then add a 'just about anything' in there that wasn't meant to fit into the larger picture it causes a conflict with the original genetic data.

So my assumption of the probibility of a mutation that causes a gaining of efficiency in a function or physical trait (I'm assuming that these cells weren't originally photo sensitive, and that they never contained this data in the first place so it wasn't hidden or corrupted) is zero. Because you have to affect more than just nucleotides, or I should say you have to affect nucleotides on a large scale (all at once nonetheless) to get that data to appear in the first place. This mechanism has yet to be discovered.

My conclusion then is that mutations simply don't do enough work even to cause a change such as this. This is why a mutation affecting red blood cells (sickle cell anemia) doesn't completely change what the red blood cells are. It just causes a crippling of the original purpose of the red cells. If mutations worked on a large enough scale to do this, then the effect on red blood cells would simply be more widespread (or the effect on anything by mutations). Technically, they're still red blood cells just with a handicap.

Sure, mutations can effect an entire wing, but this can happen on a small scale by corrupting the data that causes these wings to grow at all. It doesn't have to completely manipulate the entire data of the wing.

So mutations have two hurdles to cross (and I know these two hurdles exist because they were evidenced in the fly experiment and because we both know something about genetics).

1). They don't work on a large enough scale to do enough 'random mixing' to make it even statistically possible for a mutation to occur. Even when mutations are crammed together in a short period of time (fruit flies) they still work on too small of a scale to affect enough genetics to produce these new organs we're always hearing about, but never see.

I understand why you think animals can gain new data, especially if snakes have legs (normally I would just call these lizards) but assumptions based on fossils are no match for the observable truth. You can cook up any equation you want, but the the observable truth never lies.

2). They conflict with the original genetic material, which causes negative effects in the creature.

I don't care who you are, you don't want sickle cell anemia. And if the only way evolution can change a creature (even for the better) is by causing bad things to happen to that creature, then this still fits within the creationist model of evolution because no matter how many times you pile bad things on to a creature, it'll never stop being that creature.

At this point, I have to pass the corn picture to get down to Marco's post. Its been a while since anything's gotten me to giggle like a school girl, like that.

Quote:

If you define it as difference in life span or procreation rate of the new organism compared to its predecessor then you have a usable biological definition.




Not necessarily. We can compare efficiency, fitness, etc. It takes into account a lot of different things. For a new mutation to avoid being 'bad' it doesn't have to not be less efficient, or cause less fitness, etc. Those things help, but it has to create something that wasn't there. I should say the argument isn't about whether or not mutations can cause good or bad things to happen, but whether or not this comes at a price to the original genetic code. Ok, you don't die of malaria, but you had to cripple your red blood cells in the process. This didn't create any new data, so how does that show that a human can become a dragon?

Of course, I should explain that too. You can have 'new' data in the form of a new amino acid, or shorter or longer genes (more or less amino acids), but because we are already dealing with a well ordered creature, these changes can't lead to anything that is better relative to what already existed. Which is why sickle cell anemia caused a 'new' amino acid to appear on a gene, but still caused something to become 'out of order'. The red blood cells don't do their job as well, wouldn't you agree? They die faster, they aren't pliable enough to squeeze through vessels. This may not always kill the victim, but it certainly doesn't help.

I just....I get what you guys are saying about mutations, and I think half of it has to do with miscommunication mostly on my part, but the other half is perspective. We're not really disagreeing about what can happen, but about what the outcome is here and exactly why these outcomes are reached.

Quote:

Yes, if there were no mitigating circumstances then this would indeed be bad. But in this case the mitigating circumstances are quite clear: you are more likely to have health complication due to sickle cell deformation but much less likely to die from Malaria.




This is what I mean by miscommunication. I need to find a different way to say this. Nucleotides are organized into amino acids. These amino acids are further organized into genes. These genes then produce proteins. You can have a mutation help you out, that's not what we disagree on. That's why I brought up the example of the fish in the first place. What we disagree on is the process by which the mutation becomes helpful in the first place. If I lived in a cave all my life and never had eyes and then left the cave. Its one thing to say that I could grow new eyes and that's a positive mutation, but its a positive mutation into something new. If on the other hand I go into this cave and lose my eyes, that's also a positive mutation. Who, in their right mind, would want to die from an eye infection? However, the process by which both of these adaptations took place is very distinct and very important in finding out if not only is creationist evolution true, but whether or not materialist evolution is true.

In the latter example, either the data for the eyes had to be hidden, outright lost, or unable to be useful because the device that caused them to grow in the first place got turned 'off.' These are what I mean by bad mutations. They may lead to good outcomes, but they lead to a general breakdown of the overall structure of DNA. Because, if you combine enough of these mutations, eventually the animal will become completely unfit to live on earth. Would you disagree with that?

In the first example, we randomly remixed our amino acids to gain eyes (assuming for a moment that mutations worked on a larger scale than they do). However, this kind of mutation could be considered 'good' because it not only lead to data that never existed before, but it lead to data that never existed before that lead to a brand spanking new creature. There may be a me that exists without those eyes back in the cave, but I'm still a new creature because I grew eyes without the aid of previous genetic material.

Which example occurs in nature? Yes, good and bad mutations can be said to occur, but like I said my argument isn't against evolution. I believe mutations cause change, and that this change can be said to be good (its all part of evolution). But good isn't good enough. It has to lead to data that never existed, not just work on the original data by crippling or reducing this data. Otherwise you still have a long way to go in showing how materialist evolution is possible.

This is the kind of bait and switch tactic is used on the public. We're shown this change, and that it can lead to good things, but we're not shown the basis of this change and how it can't lead one creature to become another and never has before.

I need a new hobby. Its just, I think we're very close to meeting each other on this whole idea of evolution. Maybe I'm wrong and you guys have something else up your sleeve. Who knows? At least I know things'll be interesting.

Quote:

Yes, if there were no mitigating circumstances then this would indeed be bad. But in this case the mitigating circumstances are quite clear: you are more likely to have health complication due to sickle cell deformation but much less likely to die from Malaria. If sickle cell anemia suddenly appeared in a population and remained in the genepool even though there were no deaths from malaria then you would even have evidence against evolution. But that's not the case.




And besides, in this example all you've shown is how even bad mutations (reduction of genetics) can be used to protect our species. So on the other side of this mutation we still have humans, its just that sickle cell anemia managed to protect our DNA. My point is that its misleading to call these types of mutation 'evolution.' They are evolution, but they're going to lead people to believe that this proves some primitive ape eventually became man. Which is why I always make it a point to make a distinction between what level of evolution I'm talking about here.

Quote:

I don't follow you. 80 million compared to 3000 million is rather a low. What are you trying to say?




I'm saying that in ratio form it sounds low, but the difference is pretty big on a smaller level.

That and this 'junk' dna has been found to have a purpose before. It may not be expressible, but it has to do with mitosis and passing of genetic information.

Sure, there is real junk DNA that does absolutely nothing (that we know of so far), but some of it is required in the process of replicating our current DNA

edit: possibly all of it actually in which case that would explain why the 'junk' dna of monkey and man is so similar. They have similar DNA because they look the same, and they have similar junk DNA because their expressible DNA is so similar and it indirectly requires the use of this junk DNA.

Quote:

Back to junk DNA: if there are identical base sequences in organism A and B that can not be transcribed into proteins, thus are meaningless to the organism




Introns are useless to the creature? Mutations show they aren't, since mutations on the intron cause problems with imprinting. I'll assume you know what imprinting is in this context? I don't want to patronise you. Anyway, this can result in different diseases and cancer.

The very idea of junk DNA in the first place is kind of a problem. You say junk DNA is junk because at our current understanding we don't know what this junk DNA is yet (or what it does). To say that its inability to create protein proves its uselessness is kind of a loaded argument. I can't prove you wrong because we don't know 100% of everything about genetics. Just like introns were first thought to be 'vestigial', and like some organs were first thought to be vestigial: things change.

"While many scientists assume much of this sequence is probably an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose, some or all of it may function in ways that are not currently understood. In fact, recent studies have suggested functions for certain portions of what has been called junk DNA. -- The "junk" label is therefore recognized as something of a misnomer, and many would prefer the more neutral term "noncoding DNA"."

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

I purposely left out a phrase about evolution from that quote. Because I'm brainwashing you. Actually this is the phrase if you want to read it, I just didn't think it was entirely relevant.

"Moreover, the conservation of some "junk" DNA over millions of years of evolution may imply an essential function."

So I think it would be fair not to jump to conclusions just yet. We have a lot to learn. We includes me of course because I'm learning as this discussion goes along too.

Quote:

That's probably a road to disaster We do not have the complete genome for chimpanzees but we do have the genome for parts of it and can compare the nucleotides to that of humans divide the number of variations by the genome length and you have the percentage of difference. And since this is science you (or any creationist in a biochem lab) could disprove it by showing that there are more variations then have been observed. Until then it's wishful thinking.




Do I still need to respond to this?



I have to say you guys (I know you won't see it this way entirely) but you guys are a God send. I'm the type of person who can't just believe something, I have to know why I believe something and I have to know and understand this proof. Some call it overanalytical, and that may be true, but frankly I'm grateful for it. Anyway, the point is that I've never had as much faith in creationism as I have had since these discussions with you guys. Facts on the internet are one thing, but putting my faith to the test against you guys has been a great experience. You've tempered my thinking and beliefs in a way that nothing else ever could and I'm grateful for that.

Thanks. I hope I've been a worthy opponent thus far.

Now, its off to my friend's house until I have to go to sleep.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/06/06 04:42

Ran, please stop. You're going to convert me to the other side.

No offense. I'm just saying, it almost seems like you're trying to convince them that they're right.

edit: All I'm saying is that you're playing into their hands. You can't argue on that basis. Not that you can even argue on a scientific basis either, but at least that one isn't SO bad.
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/06/06 08:28

Quote:

It seems obvious you want to drop this subject. Just let me point out one thing. I'm not the one who even said this was a failed experiment in the first place. Scientists, even the one who performed it, said it was a failure. I just took the conclusion to the next logical step.


I think this statement was about the Miller-Urey experiment. It was not a failure at all because it showed that organic molecules can spontaneously form from anorganic ones. What is in doubt is the exact composition of an early atmosphere. The Miller experiment has been repeated in various forms over the past decades with different atmospherical conditions and even conditions underwater. Some of these experiments created amino acids, others did not.

Quote:

Instead, what I'm saying is the more obvious conclusion is that at one point all of these genetic traits were more generalized within a smaller number of species, maybe within even only one species. However, because even on an island there are different requirements for surviving, certain genes of this species seperated and formed their own species, albeit with less genetic variance.


Okay, let's assume that the finches have a large variance in their traits and some environmental conditions cause them to have distinct populations. Why should their descendants lose any of that variance? Basically if you were to transport one of the finches back into a different ecological niche, so to speak, they could easily adapt due to their variance. I think you are trying to reinvent Lamarckism here, where body features gained during the lifetime of an individual gets passed on to offspring- doesn't work that way.



Quote:

Fair enough, but geneticists do not (maybe it could be said that geneticists are just more specialized biologists). A lot of biology is steeped in evolution, so biologists at this point are only looking for more proof of materialist evolution (forgive my use of the word materialist, I simply don't know any other way to put it, and there is an important distinction). Its ok, even from my creationist viewpoint, that biologists are only trying to find evidence of materialist evolution. As I've said, I'm all for anything that leads to a better understand of life. However, when they find evidence that contradicts their viewpoint, it should be presented FAIRLY to the public, not in a manner that misleads the layman.



If you talk to biologists you will find out that they are not out "looking for more proof of evolution". For biologists (and most every other scientist in the life sciences) evolution is factual. An astronomer does not look for "proof of gravity" when investigating a new planet, instead he looks for how the theory of gravitation (assumed to be correct) explains the position of that planet and what future motion might be expected. Similarly a biologist looking at a previously unknown organism looks for how the theory of evolution (assumed to be correct) explains the morphology of that organism and what other organisms are to be expected in its lineage. If the evidence contradicts the theory, our scientist will publish a paper about that, argue with his colleagues for a couple of years, then revise the theory and get a handful of prizes.

Quote:

However, geneticists have been trying for a LONG time to find some working mechanism for a change in kinds of animals. They haven't found it.


Again, biologists (not just geneticists) will disagree with your claim. The changes in kind are recorded in the fossil record. However, they can not be reproduced in a laboratory.

Quote:

And they've also found that there is something stopping these 'positive' or 'new' mutations from occuring.


You have claimed this before. No geneticist claims that there is such a mechanism and you have not backed up your claim that there is by showing how it might work. Merely repeating the claim does not strengthen it.

Quote:

If mutations are so good for creatures to become something else, why do cells have natural defense mechanisms (albeit, defenses that don't work 100%) to reverse or prevent these mutations? I'm seriously just asking, I'm not really sure myself. I'd like to say that these mechanisms show mutations are always bad, but I can't draw that conclusion at this time.


This is the example that JCL was talking about earlier. A mutation is far more likely to be harmful than to be beneficial. If you pick to 2 letters from our alphabet there are ca. 660 possible combinations. How many of these are English words (an, in, of, on, etc.) ? Maybe 20 ? Thus out of 660 character "mutations" only 20/660= 3% create "good" mutations.
Biologists do not disagree that mutations are mostly harmful, however, you are wrong to assume that therefore all mutations must be harmful. Some are completely neutral (because of codon redundancy as mentioned previously) and some are beneficial.

Quote:

So my assumption of the probibility of a mutation that causes a gaining of efficiency in a function or physical trait (I'm assuming that these cells weren't originally photo sensitive, and that they never contained this data in the first place so it wasn't hidden or corrupted) is zero.


In that case I recommend reading up on probability theory as well. You are also ignoring translocations here which allow completely new proteins to be created without having to change every base individually by simply appending half of an existing gene from one spot onto another gene at another spot.

Quote:

Because you have to affect more than just nucleotides, or I should say you have to affect nucleotides on a large scale (all at once nonetheless) to get that data to appear in the first place. This mechanism has yet to be discovered.



See above, this mechanism is known as translocation or cross-over.

Quote:

This is why a mutation affecting red blood cells (sickle cell anemia) doesn't completely change what the red blood cells are. It just causes a crippling of the original purpose of the red cells.


Because that's the fastest way to "deal" with malaria. We could imagine a rather complicated mutation that adjusts the immune system to deal with this disease, but switching a single nucleotide apparently does an acceptable job.

Quote:

I know these two hurdles exist because they were evidenced in the fly experiment


I remember from your lengthy post that you referenced some early 20th century experiments. If you want to do more research please look at the fly experiments performed in the last 4 decades.

Quote:

I understand why you think animals can gain new data, especially if snakes have legs (normally I would just call these lizards) but assumptions based on fossils are no match for the observable truth. You can cook up any equation you want, but the the observable truth never lies.


I know you would like some biologist to turn a fish into a lizard, but that's just not how it works. We are talking about millions of years with selection pressure. All that can be done in a lab is make bacterias resistant to their antagonists and show adaptation to their environment in fruit flies.
To come back to the theory of gravity: we can see and measure it in the small but it also causes galaxies to spin. Can we measure the gravity exerted on a galaxy? Can we reproduce it in a laboratory? Should we thus discount gravity on large scale object? No, those are reasonable extrapolations and as long as the facts match the theory and there is no better explanation we accept the theory.
Creationism as a theory (using the word in its non-scientific sense) claims that complete animals can be created out of thin air. We do not have any evidence to back up this claim. We can't even extrapolate because nobody has seen even a tiny bacteria materialize out of thin air.

Quote:

then this still fits within the creationist model of evolution because no matter how many times you pile bad things on to a creature, it'll never stop being that creature.


This is called "shifting the goal post". Usually creationists talk about a vague "kind" that is never clearly defined. This is why the modern definition of "species" is used by biologists. If creatures from population A can not produce fertile offspring with creatures from population B then they are of different species. Compare this to a vague notion of "no matter how often I change it it still stays basically the same".

Quote:

You can have 'new' data in the form of a new amino acid, or shorter or longer genes (more or less amino acids), but because we are already dealing with a well ordered creature, these changes can't lead to anything that is better relative to what already existed.


You are still claiming that there must be some process that prevents improvements to an existing organism without explaining what such a process might be.

Quote:

Which is why sickle cell anemia caused a 'new' amino acid to appear on a gene, but still caused something to become 'out of order'.


That's messed up. It should be: a nucleotide on a gene got changed which caused a different amino acid to appear which in turn causes sickle cell anemia.

Quote:

They die faster, they aren't pliable enough to squeeze through vessels. This may not always kill the victim, but it certainly doesn't help.


On average it helps them to live longer. What's the point of having a baby with excellent blood cells that dies within a few months due to malaria infection ?

Quote:

This is what I mean by miscommunication. I need to find a different way to say this. Nucleotides are organized into amino acids. These amino acids are further organized into genes. These genes then produce proteins.


Nope. Nucleotides are bases which make up part of the DNA. Depending on the level of abstractions you can organize these into exons or genes. Genes when translated cause amino acids to be created which when attached to each other form proteins.

Quote:

In the first example, we randomly remixed our amino acids to gain eyes (assuming for a moment that mutations worked on a larger scale than they do). However, this kind of mutation could be considered 'good' because it not only lead to data that never existed before, but it lead to data that never existed before that lead to a brand spanking new creature. There may be a me that exists without those eyes back in the cave, but I'm still a new creature because I grew eyes without the aid of previous genetic material.


I have adressed most of this above. Large scale mutations occur and you use a very subjective notion of "creature". An organism that has completely different blood cells you do not consider to be a new creature, but an organism that has its skin cells changed so that they are photo sensitive you do consider to be a new creature. I know what you are tring to say, but "I know it when I see it" ain't good enough in science.

Quote:

This is the kind of bait and switch tactic is used on the public. We're shown this change, and that it can lead to good things, but we're not shown the basis of this change and how it can't lead one creature to become another and never has before.


If you want large scale changes you have to look into fossils, and of course you'll find lots of uninformed laymen saying that those fossils are all made up and professional paleontologists stating how they relate to each other. Take your pick as to who you trust. I have never been interested in old bones, so I can not help you with that.

Quote:

The very idea of junk DNA in the first place is kind of a problem. You say junk DNA is junk because at our current understanding we don't know what this junk DNA is yet (or what it does). To say that its inability to create protein proves its uselessness is kind of a loaded argument. I can't prove you wrong because we don't know 100% of everything about genetics. Just like introns were first thought to be 'vestigial', and like some organs were first thought to be vestigial: things change.


Again, basic science: you can't prove a negative. Thus the burden of proof is on you to show that junk DNA is not actually junk. Some experiments have been done with mouse DNA where junk sequences were removed and the phenotype remained the same.

Quote:

So I think it would be fair not to jump to conclusions just yet.


So.. in a case where current evidence contradicts your basic assumption and clearly shows that humans and apes have a common ancestor it's not fair to jump to conclusion and we have to wait? Yet when chemists are trying to find models for abiogenesis but have not been successful in describing every step along the way it's fair to conclude that evolution is untenable??
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/07/06 04:57

What experiments in fruit flies have changed in the last four decades. I'd be interested in learning.

Anyway, you've outlasted me. I can't keep doing this for several hours a day, I have hobbies and work, etc. I just don't have the energy or the determination to keep this going. It probably doesn't help that I wore myself out to begin with.

We'll have to go our seperate ways on this one, I think. I just can't keep doing this anymore. Its starting to interfere with my hobbies.

Thanks again, its been fun in the meantime anyway.
Posted By: Scramasax

Re: Science and Creation - 04/07/06 08:34

Gotta pace yourself Irish.

I program for a week, then hit the boards for a couple of days and try not to check it more than twice a day. That way some video game making gets done
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/07/06 16:55

"Ran, please stop. You're going to convert me to the other side.

No offense. I'm just saying, it almost seems like you're trying to convince them that they're right."

I see that point of view. I'd have to "lower" myself down to their level to continue.

They are so "high minded", esteemed and evolved creatures that they cannot understand the easy nor understand the "simple" logic of the world.

They have put themselves on a high Pedestal, with modern science as their god.
They also thumb their little noses at people like me, like the snobs that they are.

I would urge you, however, to not fall into the ideals and like-mindedness of these mental midets. There is a higher calling and it certainly is not on these forums I suppose. Bye...
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/07/06 21:33

Quote:

What experiments in fruit flies have changed in the last four decades. I'd be interested in learning.



Section 5.3 here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/11/06 17:53

So...you basically just repeated what I've been saying all along. Animals can speciate. Speciation is essential to the creationist model of life too. Without speciation, the number of animals that would have gone extinct would be far greater than it is. I skipped over everything but the fruit fly part, so maybe I need to dig deeper, but I'm still not seeing evolution in action. At least not the kind of evolution you're speaking of.

Furthermore, this also shows the amount of confusion caused by trying to define animals by species. Fertile hybrids are constantly produced from seperate species (more and more so as time goes on), thus not making them seperate species in the first place (depending on which definition of species is most convenient for scientists at the time). In fact, the more you allow these different phenotypes to mate without selective pressure, the closer they'll get to the phenotype of the 'master species' I was talking about. Zeedonk or liger, anyone?

Selective pressure simply specializes the genes (through speciation even) based on the environment, etc, showing how one general kind of animal can lead to many different species. So, since this could either be evidence of creation or evolution, tell me why I should accept evolution on faith? Especially when the only answer that that faith has to offer me is that I'm nothing more than an animal and my life is meaningless, and is meant to end in nothing more than death.

People have a huge misunderstanding of creationism. They think speciation occuring disproves the Genesis account. Which on the surface it seems to, but people don't understand that selective pressure wasn't on the animals in the beginning. They didn't even hunt each other, and there was no death, so God wouldn't have created all the variety of species we see today. He would have created a more general Kind, and when the fall occured, these animals were able to speciate, or specialize in other ways based on new pressures to create new species that are able to interbreed back towards the more general kind (although some cannot (if A and C can interbreed and B and C can, but A and B can't doesn't mean they weren't from the same kind) or won't produce fertile offspring, but that's due to non-evolutionary changes in chromosomes as we like to call it). It is interesting to note when these barriers don't exist, that hybrids tend to take up a more generalized phenotype, though, showing that our model of biology isn't as quack as some people would like it to be.

Maybe I'm reading the paper wrong, but you've given my argument a leg up here.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/11/06 19:17

Quote:

"Ran, please stop. You're going to convert me to the other side.

No offense. I'm just saying, it almost seems like you're trying to convince them that they're right."

I see that point of view. I'd have to "lower" myself down to their level to continue.

They are so "high minded", esteemed and evolved creatures that they cannot understand the easy nor understand the "simple" logic of the world.

They have put themselves on a high Pedestal, with modern science as their god.
They also thumb their little noses at people like me, like the snobs that they are.

I would urge you, however, to not fall into the ideals and like-mindedness of these mental midets. There is a higher calling and it certainly is not on these forums I suppose. Bye...




This world is far from simple, if you think that it's simple then there are plenty of things around us that would proof you wrong. Indeed your solution of divine intervention is rather simplistic, but as long as there is no proof for any influence of God, then how can you expect us to believe at all? I often hear that religious people refer to us as 'poor souls' or 'lost souls', but considered the evidence which points really quite clearly into the more obvious evolution theory-direction, I'd say they are kinda lost. I don't want to be offending, but I'm just honest when I say don't take anyone serious who still thinks the evolution theory is a myth without evidence.
Oww and who is talking about us thinking about ourself as being 'higher' and perfectly right? You are the one stating you don't wish to 'lower' yourself to our level. So basically you are stating yours ís higher. At least we have evidence, at least we don't rule out other possibilities (like divine intervention for example! science does not exclude religion, eventhough I personally don't like the Intelligent Designer-like approaches, but still), religious people on the contrary are afraid of changes to their ideology, because basically that's all there is to it, they try to maintain ancient beliefs that unfortunately are quite outdated. Don't get me wrong, God might exist (and hell no, I'm not afraid for that possibility either), but the genesis-creation 'theory' seems rather highly unlikely.

Cheers
Posted By: Neonotso

Re: Science and Creation - 04/12/06 00:01

Hey guys, have a look at this link: http://drdino.com/articles.php?spec=105. If you can read through all of it (it's not all that long), and truly think about it and be truthful with yourself, then I don't see how it would be "logical" to say evolution is scientific. (I'm writing this quick so I don't miss American Idol: please forgive any mistakes. )
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/12/06 00:05

For the FSM's sake, at least bring up someone like Behe who's got some idea of what he's talking about and not a fruitcake like Mr. Hovind/Doc Dino.

(..and don't forget to buy his many popular books and videos..)
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/12/06 05:46

This Doc Dino might be crazy as you say, I haven't ever really read any of his stuff before, but he brings up some interesting points in that link. Really doesn't matter, though. You can't corner someone who's point will just end up being, "That's just the way it is." Or, "We don't know yet."
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/12/06 06:39

There is no arguing with those kinds of people. We just need to either convince otehrs that they are crackpots, or eliminate them.
Posted By: William

Re: Science and Creation - 04/12/06 07:12

Your both right, it's almost impossible to argue with a bull-headed individual. A waste of time, as they will always win. You may even be fooled to think that they listen to your side of an arguement, but it's all an act, they have written their agenda long before the arguement began. However, theres no need to label them as crackpots or eliminate them. Infact, they could be of the brightest minds around, it takes brains to twist words around and argue a point with no real facts. Also, they can be very kind individuals if you bow down to them and wash their feet.

P.S - Marco brought up a good point about the books, merchandise, ect. You really have to wonder how many people are motivated by the money or by their beliefs.
Posted By: keinPlan86m

Re: Science and Creation - 04/12/06 16:32

I readed a lot of the thinks here.
I'm a student of biology.

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Scince is trying to find out if it is a right or wrong theory.
Not with words, but with facts!

The things about theory are some sides ago...

I hope i can mention some things that haven't been said:
For example a fact again Evolution could be the sexual mating, it's absolutely inefficient!
You make 1 out of 2 (egg and sperm) and the "improvement" is not better than having thousands of clones with mutations.
Thats a fact.


There are lots of facts that speak again it but more toward it, so its the actuall theory not more. You can fill empty spaces with god if you want but that will not bring the right answers i think.

Hope everybody understood my english.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/12/06 16:43

Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. A scientific theory theory that has stood for over 150 years without being falsified is as close to fact as science can come. It can never be positively proven.

Evolution has proven extraordinarly useful to science, becasue of its organizing power, and it predicatory power. For instance, Darwin predicted that the earliest human ancestors would be found in Africa. He was right. This is why evolution is considered as a fact.

you are obviously either not a real student of biology, or are a bad student, because this a basic tennet of all science.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/12/06 17:42

No, he's basically correct. Science is developing theories, not facts.

Most scientists speak of evolution as a fact because it's based on so many facts. But strictly speaking, it's only a theory, although a well founded one - just like general relativity or quantum theory.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/12/06 17:53

yes but there is a differenc between a scientific theory that is testable, and a theory of why someone likes cheese. poepel use the word theory like "its JUST a theory", meaning that it is unproven. You can't prove a theory, only falsify it--you know this.

And also, while natural selectiopn is debated, and exact relationships betwen organism, that evolution occured is indeed a scientific fact.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/13/06 03:52

Quote:

And also, while natural selectiopn is debated, and exact relationships betwen organism, that evolution occured is indeed a scientific fact.




I think you have that backwards. Natural selection is a fact. You can debate it all you want, but its observable. What we don't observe is a creature gaining new data, we simply have to assume it happened based on evidence of the past. Which is fine and dandy, but it definately doesn't push evolution into the realm of fact.

That you think its fact just goes to show how horribly misrepresented the guesswork of evolution is. But then again, to you, that I don't think its fact just goes to show how loony I am so I guess we're at a stalemate here.

Oh well.

Just one other thing you got wrong. If the evolutionary timeline is true, then the exact relationships between organisms aren't as exact as you say they are. According to the timeline, the eye would have had to evolve on its own at least (according to evolutionists) 36 times. There was a theory that it was a shared gene in the primitive form of the eye, but that was just one zoologist, and now most evolutionists agree it would have had to have happened near to forty or more times.

Its easy enough to draw a diagram of half-eyes step-by-stepping the construction of the eye, but the eye is much more complex than a simple step-by-step children's diagram that evolutionists would show someone.

Quote:

When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10 to the -12 sec]is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein's metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to "cut" a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

And the eye-cup sounds simple enough when Dawkins describes it, but dozens of proteins control the structure of cells and their arrangement, and needs molecular supports to hold the structure in place.

A major objection to the Dawkins scenario is that the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to ‘I must take evasive measures’, and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.




The idea that this happened 40 times, or probably more is scoffable. But you can keep believing it, because you have old bones and we all know fossils can explain what observable science cannot.

JCL once said, if it can happen, it probably has. But how many hundreds of thousands of times can this statement apply within the finite amount of time allowed for evolution?

Evolutionists like to dumb things down to little preschooler diagrams whenever the evidence makes things look shady for them. Which I find hilarious. Their dumbed down version (a simple lense with a simple receptor in the background) already requires an almost unfathomable complexity that would have arisen by chance, without the ability for the animal to even use it yet. But we're the quack ones.


I'm going to regret posting this, though. I really shouldn't get back into this.


Here's where I got Dawkin's preschooler diagram and some of the info on the evolutionary history of the eye.

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/14/06 00:11

@Irish_Farmer: You are stating a lot without backing it up properly. For example, where did this came from?:

Quote:


Evolutionists like to dumb things down to little preschooler diagrams whenever the evidence makes things look shady for them. Which I find hilarious. Their dumbed down version (a simple lense with a simple receptor in the background) already requires an almost unfathomable complexity that would have arisen by chance, without the ability for the animal to even use it yet. But we're the quack ones.




Maybe you've only looked into the highschool books about it, because I've got here about 4 books going deep into detail. You may not have read literature of the scientific level, but more 'popular' stuff, basically designed for people with not much background knowledge or just to make a book which is readable for a lot of people, not just very clever one's ..
To give you an example of an excellent book on the subject;

"The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution" Jones, Martin, Pilbeam, Dawkins (etc..).

Quote:

That you think its fact just goes to show how horribly misrepresented the guesswork of evolution is. But then again, to you, that I don't think its fact just goes to show how loony I am so I guess we're at a stalemate here.




That's not true. Although the idea is a theory, it's backed with lots of facts, wether you like it or not. It's far from guesswork, and by using these kind of words you don't make it less solid.

Oww and about the fact or not thing. Yes, I agree evolution is a theory, but as long as it's not falsified, then it may be considered valid. When something is valid, especially theory's, then it's considered highly likely, more or less a fact. I guess every scientist will tell you that there is no such thing as truth and perhaps facts don't exist either, especially when getting really filosophic about it .

Quote:

If the evolutionary timeline is true, then the exact relationships between organisms aren't as exact as you say they are. According to the timeline, the eye would have had to evolve on its own at least (according to evolutionists) 36 times. There was a theory that it was a shared gene in the primitive form of the eye, but that was just one zoologist, and now most evolutionists agree it would have had to have happened near to forty or more times.

The idea that this happened 40 times, or probably more is scoffable. But you can keep believing it, because you have old bones and we all know fossils can explain what observable science cannot.




The thing you forget is, the eye's purpose plays a major role here. I think it's not that odd that it has been 'invented by nature through evolution' over 40 times. Just think about the human inventions from the last 200 hundred years, plenty of things got invented more than 4 times. Considered the time difference between that and the 40 times of eye 'invention', I think it's not odd at all. I also have to remind you that some species are not linked to others, so if they indeed didn't have a common ancestor who developed eyes during a evolutionary process, then when eye's would give a clear advantage to the species they would need to develop those. Some species can't evolve very well and just die out, others are lucky to have beneficial mutations, after quite some time and a lot of mutations later the eye could have fully developed. Yes, you are right this whole process is far from simple, yet there are enough interesting species in this world from which we can learn a lot about this process. We've got small creatures with eyes only sensitive to light, but not really able to see, and we got the far evolved animal eye (like from humans or predator birds) and a lot in between too. Enough observable scientific material to study imho, and bones also say a lot. You speak of them as if it's wood, but all kinds of features will tell things. Really basic stuff can be derived from them instantly, like how big would the organs have been, but also a lot lot more, like details about the eyes can be derived from for example skulls with further study, as in comparisons with modern animals/humans. Again, it's far from guesswork, and it's pretty solid.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/14/06 06:49

What we have going on here right now is this:

"I'm right because I said so."

"No, I'm right because I said so."

Maybe I shouldn't have been so vague because that post didn't lead us anywhere. But it really is getting beyond the point of the argument. Unless we establish if evolution is even possible in the first place, we're just going to keep going back and forth like this. Yeah, I made a few stabs at evolution, but it really doesn't need to be argued.

However, one thing that does need to be argued is this:

Quote:

Really basic stuff can be derived from them instantly, like how big would the organs have been, but also a lot lot more, like details about the eyes can be derived from for example skulls with further study, as in comparisons with modern animals/humans. Again, it's far from guesswork, and it's pretty solid.




Interpreting fossils isn't evolution. That would be forensics. But I get what you're saying. However, seeing evolution in the fossil record is just one viewpoint, that doesn't mean its right. We've also interpreted a lot of things into fossils that we later found out were false outright, so you're not dealing with an exact science in these fossils. But this is another bunny trail. We're not going to solve anything by worrying about this.

Oh, one more thing. Conscious, purposeful humans creating things, and mindless random evolution creating something repeatedly is comparing apples to oranges. Evolutionists themselves will tell you that evolution is neutral and has no goal. When we invent something, we have a goal or a purpose. So that can't be used as a parallel.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/14/06 22:01

Quote:

Oh, one more thing. Conscious, purposeful humans creating things, and mindless random evolution creating something repeatedly is comparing apples to oranges. Evolutionists themselves will tell you that evolution is neutral and has no goal. When we invent something, we have a goal or a purpose. So that can't be used as a parallel.




I'm not quite sure what you mean with this, can you explain this a bit more? I think evolution does have a purpose, or I should say life has a purpose, but both are linked together in my opinion.
I don't believe in a mindless random evolution, infact why should it be random at all? Evolutionary stages of todays species are a result of adaptations to the past's conditions. It's a simple mechanism, the weak will die out, the ones with beneficial properties will make sure a species won't die out, or maybe even evolve into a new species. I'd say that's both the purpose of life and the purpose of evolution, or at least it's result. A result of a simple equation is not a random something. It's a race, the last one's a loser, the first one obviously was either stronger that the rest or had something a bit different that made him the winner.
Human inventions either happen because someone has a 'eureka moment' and suddenly has a crazy idea, ending up in a great invention, or there is desperate need for some problem to be solved. For example certain tools to work the land, instead of doing it all by hand, those inventions are the ones comparable to evolutionary steps. The only way a species would survive, would be to adapt to it's threatning situation, in the example the tools would be the invention that would help out the humans. I think it's infact quite comparable. One invention because there is a desire for a solution to a certain problem or situation. An evolutionary change because the species wouldn't survive otherwise, off course these changes don't come in a christmass package, it's the work of natural selection and mutations.

Btw I don't get it either why certain creationists believe that the eye could never have evolved in steps in the first place because it's function would only become available if there would be enough 'hardware and software' to even be able to use it. Again, this view is way to simplistic. The socalled hardware and software comes gradually, just like the eye itself. Just look at some animals around us, like chickens for example. They've got wings, yet can't really fly, only a few feet above the ground. I know most scientists think this is infact a degradation, but who proofs me wrong that the eye may not actually have had a really handy function in the first stages of it's evolution? Why would that be so odd?

Quote:

Interpreting fossils isn't evolution.




Okey, when I understand correctly, now you are stating it can't be seen by studying fossils, well there are plenty of examples that will prove you wrong. Rudimentary structures, left overs so to speak from other adaptions to different environments. Now why would God add those to a lifeform ... Again, fossils play a keyrole, how else would you propose to study the past?

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/15/06 04:45

When I say random evolution, I really should have said random mutations. Natural selection has an ultimate goal, mutation is just random, both are requisites of evolution so I suppose I was focusing on mutations without elaborating.

Its not that I don't believe the eye couldn't have evolved step by step, but I'm saying is that the chances of it happening randomly, step by step, 40+ times is astronomical. When you really add up all the different probabilities of evolution, it really becomes unthinkable. That's ignoring the fact that mutations can't lead to true evolution.

Quote:

Okey, when I understand correctly, now you are stating it can't be seen by studying fossils, well there are plenty of examples that will prove you wrong. Rudimentary structures, left overs so to speak from other adaptions to different environments. Now why would God add those to a lifeform ... Again, fossils play a keyrole, how else would you propose to study the past?




That fossils prove evolution is a matter of opinion. We say that animals have similar structures has to prove evolution, I say that its a reflection of a similar creator. How do we prove each other wrong? I don't know, so I don't really care about the fossil record. The fact is that the fossil record details a long series of well-formed creatures. Not to mention that the whole thing is highly subjective. Like I said, if all the different variations of dog were suddenly fossilized, we could look back and say, "Oh, this is evolution in action, look how similar they are such a wide variety of creatures must have all evolved from the same form." When in fact they're just genetic degenerates of the wolf and in fact are all the same species. I won't get started on the dating methods, I really don't want to get off on a tangent like that right now. Besides, its unimportant to the overall picture. Whether the fossils were buried over millions of years or within 6000 years, evolution is still untrue so the fossil record bears no relevance for me.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/15/06 15:56

Quote:

Its not that I don't believe the eye couldn't have evolved step by step, but I'm saying is that the chances of it happening randomly, step by step, 40+ times is astronomical. When you really add up all the different probabilities of evolution, it really becomes unthinkable. That's ignoring the fact that mutations can't lead to true evolution.




I've read this argument dozens of times and it doesn't seem to die out. It's the basic creationist misunderstanding of simple probability calculation.

If a random event has a probability P and happens in an average time T, then 40 consecutive events will just happen in the time 40*T.

Intentionally or not, on creationist websites this is always confused with the probability for all 40 events happening at the same moment. The average time to wait for that would be proportional to 2^40 * T and that would be indeed astronomical.

In evolution we have the first case. Eyes don't pop up suddenly but develop step by step. Mutations permanently happen. Some of them will get the eye one step further - maybe one mutation in ten thousand years. Thus we'll end up with a fully developed eye in 400,000 years. Life exists since 2 billion years on earth. Thus it would be unthinkable if eyes had _not_ developed many times in many species during evolution.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/15/06 16:48

I'm not talking about it happening all at the same time. Nevermind that point, its irrelevant to the discussion, and actually is just a matter of opinion. For you, it could have happened because it did, for me, it couldn't have happened because we still don't know of any mechanism where its possible. So, whatever.

Quote:

In evolution we have the first case. Eyes don't pop up suddenly but develop step by step. Mutations permanently happen. Some of them will get the eye one step further - maybe one mutation in ten thousand years.




Your evidence for this is?

Quote:

Thus it would be unthinkable if eyes had _not_ developed many times in many species during evolution.




Assuming the goal of evolution is that creatures without eyes should get them. And that its even possible in the first place, which has never been demonstrated.
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/15/06 18:22

-->..Your evidence for this is?..

you mean beside the thousands of different set ups in different species world wide that share the same masterplan but though developed independent.

I found it quite funny to think that everything was "designed" at one time when you take a closer look (;)) on any animal arround.
Snakes, bats and fishes having eyes would make god a miserable designer because they dont really work, though they still use the same set up as our visual system does.

If there is one basic evidence for evolution and random mutation its the inperfectness of everything. Thus making development necessary to be able to survive.

The human body has a hundred of "development" mistakes and weakpoints that are only explainable thru random changes and development. Parts like the thumbs, the neck or the shoulders are bad designs for such a species like we are. But are perfect development stages on the other hand.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/15/06 18:33

Quote:

Assuming the goal of evolution is that creatures without eyes should get them. And that its even possible in the first place, which has never been demonstrated.




Yes, it has never been demonstrated. We haven't got 400,000 years yet to demonstrate the evolution of an eye.

Evolution theory explains the existence of species with a mutation and selection mechanism that is plausible, mathematically predictable, and - in case of selection and of small mutations - even directly observed. For large mutations we only have indirect evidence in transient fossils, vestigial organs and so on.

Creationism explains this with the actions of one or several gods.

Indeed we haven't directly observed the evolution of a species by large mutations. And we've also never seen a God place a new species on earth. So we can't decide from direct observation which theory is true. In such a case science applies Ockhams razor. The result is obvious.
Posted By: TripleX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/15/06 18:44

"The human body has a hundred of "development" mistakes and weakpoints that are only explainable thru random changes and development. Parts like the thumbs, the neck or the shoulders are bad designs for such a species like we are. But are perfect development stages on the other hand."

yes yes.. in 1000 years another important step will probably be done. The extinction of the damn wisdom teeth and of the appendix.
Another good step in our evolution
(no fad chops for one week anymore )
Posted By: GhostwriterDoF

Re: Science and Creation - 04/16/06 00:19

You know, I've read through this debate as it progresses. I am not quite sure of the purpose of the discussion at this point. So much energy expended and I await some consessions, some shared understanding.

How about trying something new for a change, and start talking about where science and religion run parallel in thinking. What common ground do they share. It just seems counterproductive now.

To question is valid in any sense, wether it be religion or science. In fact it is extremely important to both. We ask questions and weigh the answers to understand purpose, meaning, identity and direction.

I believe in a God and in evolution too, to a point. Evolution has plenty of gaps to give thought to variations but, the evidence is pretty clear. And science isn't all that it is cracked up to be either. Perpetual energy should have been achieved decades ago.

Hopefully our understanding will begin to evolve within the next 1000 years
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/16/06 02:23

thats the main problem. religion and science share as much as day and night.

one tries to proof anything said to make it to some point "valid", the other claims things without giving any evidence.
One side is rearranging their view of the world every day whenever new information is available, while the other tries to rearrange the world arround it.

You can believe in god and be a scientist. there is no problem at all with that.

but one thing is for sure: religion aint science. And it should not try to replace it with no matter what kind of new slogans ("intelligent design" aso)

science is a battlefield of questions and unknown, but just because we dont understand things doesnt make them supernatural or mystic.
Try to imagine what people a 2000 years ago would have called you, if you told them you can travel to the moon and back.

I am not sure, but i dont think mr. armstrong is a god

and imagine what will be possible 2000 years from now on...if we dont nuke our little asses of this planet because some warmonger feels he has heared a call from god.

cheers and happy easter
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/16/06 07:54

Quote:

you mean beside the thousands of different set ups in different species world wide that share the same masterplan but though developed independent.




I'm having a hard time understand exactly what you're saying here. I assume you're referring to the similarity between animals. You say, "Common ancesters." I say, "Common creator." Prove me wrong.

You need evidence, not assumptions.

Quote:

Snakes, bats and fishes having eyes would make god a miserable designer because they dont really work, though they still use the same set up as our visual system does.




Their eyes work as well as they need to for those animals. How can they not work? The eyes aren't just sitting on these animals, not doing a thing. Biologists would be very disheartened to hear you talking like this.

And no, they don't have the exact set up as our eyes do. In some of these cases, our eyes are either used for different purposes, or they work better altogether. The bat, an animal that relies more on sound, doesn't need eyes that are as good as ours. That's why they don't work like ours do.

Quote:

If there is one basic evidence for evolution and random mutation its the inperfectness of everything. Thus making development necessary to be able to survive.




"Animals are imperfect because they were mutated that way. They mutate that way because their imperfections make mutation necessary." Uh huh.

Telling me your opinion will get us nowhere, tell me an instance where this has been observed and I'll set you straight. However, you should also study up on this theory that you believe religiously. You don't seem to completely understand exactly how it supposedly works.

Animals aren't imperfect. They're actually very well ordered and well adapted to environments that don't treat them too harshly. There is no instance of an animal that is truly imperfect since natural selection takes care of these imperfections.

Quote:

The human body has a hundred of "development" mistakes and weakpoints that are only explainable thru random changes and development.




Another example of the perpetuation of a non-truth that's been long since refuted. Even evolutionists have moved on, but the people they've misled still seem stuck in the past. All of those hundreds of vestigial organs turned out to have a purpose. I'll address the two that were brought up below since I can't outline for you why the hundreds of old vestigial organs turned out to be not-so-vestigial. Besides, without infinite knowledge, how do we truly ever expect to know something is vestigial? More recently we've made the same mistake with junk DNA that we found out wasn't so junk after all.

Quote:

Parts like the thumbs, the neck or the shoulders are bad designs for such a species like we are.




I don't even need to argue this. I could simply let everyone else read this to understand exactly what kind of confusion evolution perpetuates.

Thumbs are bad? Try not using your thumbs for an entire day. Just use your four fingers and see how much fun that is. Nice try, but no. Nowadays even the neck and shoulders are bad for evolutionists? Its amazing the types of things people will tell themselves to rationlize a false theory. I don't even know where to begin with disputing these points. What would you have instead of a neck, or shoulders? Should our head be stuck facing the same direction all the time? Or should our arms sit lifelessly at our sides?

Quote:

But are perfect development stages on the other hand.




An opinion that cannot be backed up with fact, only faith.

Quote:

Yes, it has never been demonstrated. We haven't got 400,000 years yet to demonstrate the evolution of an eye.




I'm saying the process has never been demonstrated. Mutations are regressive. They will never lead to the creation of an eye out of nothing. Obviously we can't track the evolution of an entirely new structure. Its like the train analogy. We can only see the train leave and assume its going to make it to the right destination. The important thing is understanding which direction the train is headed.

Quote:

Evolution theory explains the existence of species with a mutation and selection mechanism that is plausible, mathematically predictable, and - in case of selection and of small mutations - even directly observed.




You have yet to show me one single case of even the most micro of evolution. So please, don't tell me that its plausible or observed. It simply is not. It must be accepted on faith. All of these examples of micro evolution have simply turned out to be micro dysgenics. The opposite of evolution.

Quote:

Creationism explains this with the actions of one or several gods.




You don't have to believe in God to understand why evolution is bunk. That the lack of a natural explanation for life leads one to believe God as a likely answer is incidental.

Science continued on like normal before evolution, scientists did the same thing as always thinking they were gaining a better understanding of God's creation. Now, they've replaced God with random chance and time, but science itself hasn't changed. God isn't science. If we find out it was impossible for life to start without a supernatural creator, is that unscientific? Its simply a scientific observation of fact. Actually, once we discovered there was no natural method for life to randomly start from a soup, we simply said, "Well, we just don't know enough yet." Materialists have a goal, and that is to disprove God at all costs. That's their problem. I'm not trying to prove God at all costs. That is something that is beyond my power, only God can prove himself to you. I'm simply showing why evolution cannot hold water.

Quote:

Indeed we haven't directly observed the evolution of a species by large mutations.




Or small mutations for that matter.

Quote:

So we can't decide from direct observation which theory is true.




Just like you guys say, its not what's certain beyond the shadow of a doubt, its about what's more likely. I don't even need to take it that far. For me, its about kicking the stool out from under a theory that entirely lacks proof. I don't care where anyone decides to go from there, as long as everyone finally realizes what scientists are continually starting to realize: evolution is faith, thus taking it out of the realm of science.

Quote:

yes yes.. in 1000 years another important step will probably be done. The extinction of the damn wisdom teeth and of the appendix.




You want to get rid of the appendix? How many times am I going to have to educate you people? This is why I call evolution the 'Dark Age' of science. It keeps people ignorant, it keeps them from wanting to understand the truth because the truth makes them feel uncomfortable when it refutes evolution. Or it just keeps them from looking deeper, because if something looks like it proves evolution on the surface, then there's no need to look below the surface and truly understand it.

The appendix keeps a leash on bacteria in our digestive system. Why would you not want this to happen? Unless you'd rather that evolution be true, than an organ serve its purpose...

It keeps bacteria that is helpful in the colon from getting into other parts of the body and causing harm. It also manufactures anti-bodies. So please, stop talking about the appendix like its useless. It isn't essential to the survival of a fully matured human, but that still doesn't explain how its an evolutionary leftover. If it does something, and it does it well, its far from vestigial. That's just the half of it by the way, for the sake of brevity I'm leaving a bunch of its physical properties and abilities out.

Evolution is the only truly vestigial thing we know of in science.

Oh yeah, you also brought up wisdom teeth, so let me enlighten you on that point.

The medical problems caused by wisdom teeth have more to do with the fact that we, as humans, are maturing a lot faster than we used to (our bodies are developing faster, we're growing taller, etc). They dug up cemetaries and compared the development rate to modern times and we're already maturing years ahead of time.

This rapid maturation is caused by better nutrition, etc. However, it has one side effect that can be bad a certain percent of the time. Our quicker maturity rate caused our jaws to become smaller than they used to be. Not by that much, but enough so that wisdom teeth can cause certain medical problems.

However, that's not evolution. It doesn't even look like the remnants of evolution. Evolution doesn't even enter the picture.

Other problems with wisdom teeth are caused by people with varying jaw size having children with mismatched jaw sizes. This causes teeth to be either more widely spaced, or less spaced, and when you introduce wisdom teeth into a mismatch it can cause minor problems.

However, recent studies have shown that overcrowding of teeth is probably not even caused by the wisdom teeth, and that in fact the overcrowding would still happen without the aid of wisdom teeth.

This general overcrowding could be explained by our change in diet, going from rougher food to softer food. While that sounds likely, I'm not sure how valid that reasoning truly is. But that's besides the point.

So here it goes...

We're still left with no evidence of evolution. Not even circumstantial evidence of evolution. A theory without evidence can hardly even be called a theory.

I keep hearing about this so called proof, but I have yet to see any proof that stands up to scrutiny.

You're welcome to try again if you feel the need.

Quote:

I am not quite sure of the purpose of the discussion at this point.




My personal goal is to gain a better understanding of biology, and to educate people out of evolution. On a more practical level, I'm continuing the debate because its tempering my opinions.

You don't truly know what you believe until you understand why others disagree.

Quote:

So much energy expended and I await some consessions, some shared understanding.




Religion and science CANNOT run parallel. Evolution is based on materialism, the belief that nothing exists except energy and matter. If you believe materialism you cannot reconcile God into a natural world, so even if evidence points to a creator, you just say to yourself, "Well, let's move on and try and find other evidence, because we know God doesn't exist."

This materialism is a religion as much as Christianity is. That's why I say science and religion cannot run parallel. Materialism corrupts science. Science is being used to prove a religion nowadays, and its rather sad that its become state-endorsed.

Quote:

Perpetual energy should have been achieved decades ago.




That isn't a weakness of science. In fact, without science we would never understand why perpetual energy is impossible. Understanding of a problem is a strength. The inability to overcome that problem is simply incidental. We will never acheive perpetual energy, no matter how enlightened we become. It would be a bigger weakness of science if it could not explain the impossibility of the problem.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/16/06 11:38

Quote:

Religion and science CANNOT run parallel. Evolution is based on materialism, the belief that nothing exists except energy and matter.




You've got something very wrong here. Evolution is a biological theory and materialism is a philosophical school. They are completely different things and in no way "based on" each other.

Quote:

I assume you're referring to the similarity between animals. You say, "Common ancesters." I say, "Common creator." Prove me wrong.

You need evidence, not assumptions.




You mean evidence like the giant hands we see from time to time place new species on earth?

Seriously, as we seem not to find a conclusion - you still firmly believe in the impossibility of progressive mutations despite the proof that they are very well mathematically possible - how about explaining your alternative theory? We can not "prove you wrong" unless you give us something like a theory. You can't "prove wrong" belief and religion.

So, how does this God creation theory work? How are species created and then placed on earth? As it's estimated that 100 million species lived on earth, this God - if it's only one - had a lot to do, all work and no play, especially in the cambrium.

Quote:

Animals aren't imperfect. They're actually very well ordered and well adapted to environments that don't treat them too harshly. There is no instance of an animal that is truly imperfect since natural selection takes care of these imperfections.




Well, there is one very obvious imperfection: illnesses and aging. They are required for speeding up the change of generations and powering evolution, however I'd be interested to learn for what purpose a God should design species with random built-in decay.

Most imperfections result from the fact that evolution can't produce any arbitrary feature. There are visible and obvious differences between evolved and designed objects. The reason is that every feature needs to evolve step by step - it can't come into existence in a perfect and finished form. Therefore we have no animals on wheels - although this would be a major advantage in some environments - nor fishes with a prop - although a prop is more effective than fins. Often evolution produces very different results than design would.

As many species - including humans - are not yet evolved to perfection, we're finding vestigial organs like the human appendix. Some vestigial organs aquired new purposes that they obviously weren't designed for, some not. An example for the latter is the appendix that is not "useful for the immune system" as a creationist myth goes. It does indeed produce anti-bodies as it's covered with lymphoid tissue - but the whole colon is covered with it, so you won't need the appendix at all. On the contrary, due to it's shape - a blind ended tube - it's bound to be blocked, which causes bacteria within to be trapped and multiply, with the well known life threatening results. That's the reason why it's a lot better for health to have it removed.

Another examples are rudimentary snake legs that disappear shortly after birth on most snake species, resulting from their evolution from reptiles. Some flightless bird species - like the new zealand Kiwi - still have rudimentary wing stubs. Humans have a useless tailbone (coccyx) and an atropied muscle (plantaris) for flexing toes - a muscle that does not work in humans at all, but worked well for our ancestors and still in monkeys.

For what purpose would a God go to great lengths to design species in a way as if they were evolved?

Is it possible that your God does not want you to believe in creationism?
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/16/06 13:07

the unintelligent design you will face every day is an observable fact and can only lead to two conclusions:
a.) god didnt knew what he was doing
b.) any part of anything has evolved

seing the similarities in structuree, dna, shape and form (= biological set up ... for those who care ) the idea that everything came from the same source doesnt sound that bad.

about the human disadvantages in its body:
the thumbs: their "intention" is to hold stuff in your hands. their placement on the other hand is a transform. They would be much more efficient if they werent placed in a 30° angle twist to the hand. The grip would be stronger, better and more flexible.

there is a ton of "unfinished" and therefor imperfect bodyparts to pick from.

the bat does not need his eyes but has still some degenerated ones? why?
They dont get used in any way and observing the fact that if someone goes blind his hearing strenghtens to compensate the loss of vision you dont think this can develop in a larger scale as well.
If we all lose the ability to see, dont you think the human body would try to find another method for orienation or do you think he would surrender and die out.


and a last note: science is not a belief!
It also has nothing to do with the religious term of believing in something.

If a scientist believes a theory is true he has found enough evidence to back up his view.

It a religious persons believes in something he does because he feels it must be right, no matter what.


-->..I'm simply showing why evolution cannot hold water...

i havent seen one single argument for this. But if you believe it is this way i am fine with that


another important note is that science is not equeal to matter or time. This are not more then "tools" to explain things but are in no way dogmas for anything. The theory of relativity is important but its not the only thing science has discovered



so dont try to get some sort of martyrium out of your position. Neither is there a goal or conspirancy in science to disproove god nor do scientists ditch their faith and religion because they say evolution is true.

though so far we have learned that god is not a old, bearded man sitting in the skies or some viking throwing flashes at us from time to time.

maybe time to take this in account as well
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/16/06 13:14

btw.: your explenation for the wisedom theet (now we have smaller jaws, less need for teeth because of smoother food aso) and their deformation sounds a lot like evolution, dont you think.

or did i miss anything after the line:
"but this doesnt have anything to do with evolution"

..for example an explenation?

cheers
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/16/06 18:19

Quote:

When I say random evolution, I really should have said random mutations. Natural selection has an ultimate goal, mutation is just random, both are requisites of evolution so I suppose I was focusing on mutations without elaborating.




Infact when we could study everything that could cause or causes mutations, then not even that would be terribly random. The kind of 'agent' (or stituation/way in which we come to contact with it) that causes the mutation could also influence where the mutation will happen, yes because there are so many cells that could be influenced that part will be random, yet not every mutated cell has an evolutional step as a result, it would have to be quite specific. You can call it random/chance, I'd say it's just a matter of time really. (Oww, nevertheless the effect of any mutation might be hard to predict off course, so when looking at the results of mutations, then looking backwards one could indeed think of it as random changes still).

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/16/06 18:52

Quote:

You've got something very wrong here. Evolution is a biological theory and materialism is a philosophical school. They are completely different things and in no way "based on" each other.




Evolution is founded on materialism because it lacks physical proof. Materialism is what keeps it going. You try and prove that nature created life because you can't believe God did it.

-----------------------------

I'm very much enjoying the fact that you guys have given up on defending evolution, and have instead turned to attack my faith in God, which isn't even the point of this debate. I've already stated, I don't care if you believe God created everything. You don't have to believe in God and creation to know that evolution is false, and yet you guys still attack creation as if I care. That's not the point of this debate. But since there is no real defense of evolution, I guess you guys have no other choice. You're trying to shift the argument away from your theory because you can't defend it.

Quote:

despite the proof that they are very well mathematically possible




The only proof that they are mathematically possible would be if they happened. Since these micro evolutions do not happen, it would be logical to assume you're leaving something out of the equation.

Quote:

how about explaining your alternative theory?




I'm not trying to convert you, JCL. I'm simply trying to show you why I find it impossible to believe evolution. It would only be distracting for me to try and explain my belief in creation.

Quote:

As it's estimated that 100 million species lived on earth,




Many of them caused by speciation. The creation is constantly changing due to new environmental pressures, etc within the bounds of the original creation. On that point, you will find no contention. The core of this matter goes to the dating methods used by scientists, which I will gladly debate once one of us has to finally concede that micro evolution can or cannot even take place.

Quote:

Well, there is one very obvious imperfection: illnesses and aging. They are required for speeding up the change of generations and powering evolution, however I'd be interested to learn for what purpose a God should design species with random built-in decay.




He didn't, nor do creationists believe he did. God designed us perfect, and our choice to disobey him and sin led to our 'downfall.' I don't get why you guys are so hung up on imperfections. Imperfections can't prove evolution. In fact, evolution is the change from imperfection to something more perfect, via mutations etc that somehow write new genetic data. Why aren't you, instead of trying to prove imperfections (or in other words trying to disprove a creator), trying to prove how evolution could work in the first place? You should be able to do that if you believe evolution.

Quote:

It does indeed produce anti-bodies as it's covered with lymphoid tissue - but the whole colon is covered with it, so you won't need the appendix at all.




All right, I was hoping I wouldn't have to, but I will go into much more extensive detail on how the appendix actually works. Give me a day or two and I'll let you know all about the appendix. More than you'll ever want to know, actually.

Quote:

it's bound to be blocked, which causes bacteria within to be trapped and multiply, with the well known life threatening results. That's the reason why it's a lot better for health to have it removed.




Its only logically better to have it removed if it causes problems. Since most people don't run into problems, the occasional problem with it can't be used to prove its uselessness.

Quote:

Another examples are rudimentary snake legs that disappear shortly after birth on most snake species, resulting from their evolution from reptiles. Some flightless bird species - like the new zealand Kiwi - still have rudimentary wing stubs. Humans have a useless tailbone (coccyx) and an atropied muscle (plantaris) for flexing toes - a muscle that does not work in humans at all, but worked well for our ancestors and still in monkeys.




I still don't get how your proof of creatures gaining any new feature is the loss of current features. Sounds rather opposite of evolution to me.

Those leg nubs on snakes have been known to be used during mating. They have a purpose. The fact of the matter is that you're proving dysgenics, if even that. The whole point of this argument is to attack my belief that God created anything. You're not going to get me sidetracked here, especially since the fact that you're resorting to these kinds of arguments just goes to show that you ran out of proof for evolution.

Its well within the realm of creation to say that these animals can lose genetic data. That's not the point. The point is that this data cannot be written from scratch. Any loss of use can just be regressive mutations piling up on a creature. Doesn't conflict with anything I believe.

Typically flightless birds have uses for their flightless wings. In mating rituals, intimidation of predators, etc. You're giving more credence to my argument that mutations lead to genetic regression in species.

The coccyx is used to aid in the birthing process, as well as adding support to our skeletal structure.

I've never heard of that toe muscle, so I have no point to make against it right now. I'd need to research it. But you guys still haven't garnered any proof of evolution. Both evolutionists and creationists agree that animals are victims of dysgenics. The point of evolution is that these structures can come out of nowhere. Without that, evolution has no ground and we can worry about the implications of vestigial organs as a reflection of a creator if you want. But let's take this one step at a time and try not to distract the argument away from something that makes you uncomfortable.

Its an interesting tactic of evolutionists to change the meaning of a word like vestigial to mean (reduced use) when in fact its true definition is:

'degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.'

-Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993)

'Vestigial organs are the useless remains of organs that were once useful in an evolutionary ancestor'

-World Book Encyclopedia 2000

So, why the sudden change in definition? You've already lost this argument so you have to change the rules? All but the fundamentalist evolutionists have already given up on vestigial organs as a sign of evolution. Your only claim against these organs is that they can cause problems? Or they don't have any apparent use that you know of? That's kind of a thin argument. The appendix isn't vestigial just because it can become infected.

I'm running out of time here, so I'm going to have to hurry this along a bit until I have more time to flesh out the discussion.

Quote:

Is it possible that your God does not want you to believe in creationism?




Nope, he gave me a brain that can examine things critically. You've gone from giving me proof of evolution that couldn't stand up to scrutiny, to using supposedly useless organs as a means of explaining God couldn't exist. I still don't see the relevancy of evolution in all of this.

If the general breakdown of genetic structure is enough to prove that bacteria can become man, then you can go ahead and think that. That's your philosophical prerogative.

Of course, since we continually find uses for these useless structures, then the evidence is leaning to my side. When you know everything about everything, then come back and tell me that we'll never find a meaning for these organs. Of course, I still think I'll elaborate further on these supposed vestigial organs at a later time when I have more time to use on this discussion since our current level of understanding is getting close enough to a complete understanding of these organs.

Quote:

the unintelligent design you will face every day is an observable fact and can only lead to two conclusions:




You keep telling me your opinion. I'm not really interested in your opinion, I want some proof which you obviously lack or you would have brought it up by now.

Quote:

the idea that everything came from the same source doesnt sound that bad.




Yeah, since no natural process has been shown to produce the variety of creatures we see today, its no wonder they all seem to have come from the same creator.

Opinion.

Quote:

the bat does not need his eyes but has still some degenerated ones? why?




Because bats aren't completely blind, they still use them. The sound they use to 'see' is mostly used in hunting.

http://vision.about.com/od/opticsvisiontheory/f/blindasbat.htm

Quote:

If we all lose the ability to see, dont you think the human body would try to find another method for orienation or do you think he would surrender and die out.




This is a pointless argument. But yeah, I think humanity would probably go extinct, considering our current dependence on technology.

Quote:

science is not a belief!




I know. Evolution isn't scientific, so its the belief. Not science.

Quote:

If a scientist believes a theory is true he has found enough evidence to back up his view.




If that's true, then why is evolution (a theory without proof) still backed up by scientists? Because materialism demands it.

Quote:

Neither is there a goal or conspirancy in science to disproove god




For MOST scientists its simply a matter of working within the established belief. For some, its a matter of believing whatever must be believed so that God cannot exist. Evolution is so well established that its just going to take a bit of time to rewire things. That's fine, change can take a bit of time.

Quote:

though so far we have learned that god is not a old, bearded man sitting in the skies or some viking throwing flashes at us from time to time.




This is a straw man. I don't see the point of even saying this.

Quote:

btw.: your explenation for the wisedom theet (now we have smaller jaws, less need for teeth because of smoother food aso) and their deformation sounds a lot like evolution, dont you think.




Only if you didn't listen to a word I said. The smaller jaw is a side effect of us maturing faster due to a changed diet. This isn't change from a genetic foundation. So it is not evolution. If us growing faster results in a smaller jaw, and that faster growth has to do with modern nutrition, then how is that evolution?
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/16/06 19:43

Quote:

Evolution is founded on materialism because it lacks physical proof. Materialism is what keeps it going. You try and prove that nature created life because you can't believe God did it.




Whatever man, keep thinking this crap. Why do religious people in general keep holding on to the thought that science or scientific theories exclude the possibility of God existing in any way whatsoever?
There are pieces of evidence all around us, there are pretty solid theories using that evidence (let me clarify that's not a crime or sin), enough evidence to reconstruct/interpret a lot eventhough not everything yet can be explained and then there's your, please excuse me, sloppy "God made everything isn't he just great"-stubborn spiritual socalled answer. You've got no evidence, so we should infact attack you uppon that FACT. The reason we try to make our own theories as solid as possible and "waterproof" lies in the fact that we don't exclude God as a possibility, so will you please stop bringing up that annoying empty assumption?
Again, evolution is not a religion, it takes more then just believing in something to become a religion. A theory can even be a religion, religions don't work with theories or at least they don't accept them, there's usually only 'one truth' and even thát thought(! thus not fact) is questionable, since everyone is just a child of it's time, thus making 'the truth' very very relative anyways.
Again, did you ever heard us say that nature could not be God's work at the same time? You are the one making the distinction. I don't think God does not exist because he could not possibly create animals or flowers or anything. I don't believe in God, because there's no and then I really mean zero evidence of his existence or influence, not even 'nature' as you distinguished it is evidence. (Evidence = something that proofs something beyond ANY doubt of course, so anything that might proof, will most probably not be enough to call it evidence, then it would be nothing more but a "possible clue with a very big questionmark on it", but really nothing more).

Edit: You obviously have doubts about the appendix, but there are better examples. What about the sacral area? (the lowest point of our spine.) It's a very clear indication that we might have had tails at one point in our evolution.
In other words, this could very well be the degradated version of the place on which we once would have tails. Infact when looking at human-like creatures who indeed have tails and comparing with human-like creatures with no or very small tails, then it's save to say it's evidence enough!! I don't remember the bible say anything about Adam and Eve having tails though, but in this case the evidence speaks against the text, as happens more often.

Cheers
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/16/06 20:58

the smaller jaw is not only attached to the surrounding elements (food, radiation and so forth) but has had tenthousands of years of development behind itself.

The so called "modernd" nutrition is a fake argument because the smaller jaws where allready present during the ancient times and far back. The head shape and therefor the jaw of the previous "models" of the homo sapiens show a smooth transisition from big to small (or in this case smaller).

The use of the jaw is way more then the consumption of food. It has become one important comunication method. Thats why women need thiner and lighter jaws


-->..This is a straw man. I don't see the point of even saying this.

Simple. People claimed god created the flash and was throwing it onto them. Right now most of us know what causes a flash.
Right now people claim god created all living things at the same time. Time will tell us again what really happened


-->..For MOST scientists its simply a matter of working within the established belief.

You dont have the slightess clue how science works then!


-->..If that's true, then why is evolution (a theory without proof) still backed up by scientists? Because materialism demands it...

nope, thats what creationists want us to believe. Evolution has a ton of back ups and every single part of the puzzle fits in very well. Some are still a question mark for us but this doesnt make the others wrong.


-->..Evolution isn't scientific, so its the belief...

thats what YOU believe and you are wrong again.


a simple roadmap about evolution:

1.) it has nothing to do with matter or how it was created. this is not the point or problem of evolution at all.

2.) evolution does not have a goal. there is nothing like "lets ditch legs to get wings". It is not a pimp my dna!

3.) There is nothing like good or bad mutations because good and bad are not terms of science in this case. There is nothing like "junk" dna. There are empty or double dna parts that can be found but this has nothing to do with junk.

4.) mutation is not evolution. It is a part of it. Its random and without any goal or direction.

5.) transition fossils: are nearly impossible to find because you would need a million of them and all need to be one strain. It would be a lot easier to tell you to show me all of your forfathers bones of the last 2000 years.

The lack of it is not an argument at all.

6.) vestigal organs: since mutation and evolution dont know right or wrong, good or bad all animals can "lose" or "gain" new attributes. the list contains a trex with tiny and useless arms, our end spine bones and a list of more.

7.) the fact that only 1% of any animal group survives on the long run makes intelligent design pointless

8.) the term "useless" and "useful" are definitions and not facts: the gills of a fish produce some sort of bacteria once stranded on the dry land. Though this bacteria is useful in some ways the gills are usless for any land creature. Everything has some sort of "useful" intention. The trex can wave with his tiny hands. But this will make them still vestigal organs. Same as our appendix and our w.teeth.

9.) there is nothing like micro or macro evolution. this are made up terms from creationists to disprove evolution. This tells a lot about the intention of this people.


the simple bottom line:
The main idea (that can be read in darwins work) is that it sounds reasonable for us that a child looks like its parents, though it shows own and different attributes (size, shape aso).
If you agree on this and on the common science attributes then there should be no doubt that with enough time the entire look and shape could change.

looking on different species you will then face the stunning fact that they share more or less the same similarities.

If you then look a little closer you will notice that though used very different all terapodes share the same structure for their arms and legs. (bringing me back to the thumb and neck ....the inperfection of the human body).
For our purpose and use this setup is not perfect and with a minor change would fit our needs a lot better.

A whale shares the same structural main set up as a bird.
Birds and reptiles as well as primates share the same arms construction: upper arm bone, fingers, the both lower arm bones.




the fossils history:
A core essence of evolution is that if we look back in time and analyze the fossils we found they have to build groups of development (even though the lack of found fossils for the reasons mentioned above).
short: during the area of the ocean living forms we wont find a human being. and we didnt (=hirarchy of development...humans have a spine. therefor as long there is no spine there is no human being.... very, very rough explained ).
(development of the horse...OSCHE, 1979,)

a development example (since all of a sudden we can agree on the fact that the jaw can get smaller or bigger):



to shorten it i will stop or all written evidence that back up the evolution theory would jam the whole forum

cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/17/06 02:44

Quote:

Why do religious people in general keep holding on to the thought that science or scientific theories exclude the possibility of God existing in any way whatsoever?




Because God didn't create life through death. He created life perfect. We ruined it. Simple as that. You guys are the ones who are hung up on God. I keep trying to keep the argument on the scientific but you keep trying to prove God can't exist ignoring the scientific invalidity of evolution. I may refer to evolution (which isn't science) as a faith. But at least I use scientific evidence to back it up. You just use straw men and generalizations.

Quote:

and then there's your, please excuse me, sloppy "God made everything isn't he just great"-stubborn spiritual socalled answer. You've got no evidence




Its like speaking to children.

I haven't provided evidence because I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists. I'm trying to prove that evolution doesn't exist. There's a difference, but since you're so worried that evolution's invalidity may cause you to consider God as an alternative you keep bringing him up. That's not the point of this discussion. Let's keep this scientific.

Quote:

Evidence = something that proofs something beyond ANY doubt of course,




You haven't provided any evidence for evolution that proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. So what's the difference?

"We're not as good as we used to be." Isn't an argument for evolution. Its an argument against a creator. But you're so hung up on disproving the existence of God you can't see the plain answer that there is no evidence for evolution even though its right in front of your eyes.

Quote:

What about the sacral area? (the lowest point of our spine.) It's a very clear indication that we might have had tails at one point in our evolution.




The idea that the coccyx, as its called, is vestigial, is not true. It aids in the birthing process, and it keeps our skeletal structure in order. We need it to be complete. Try again.

Quote:

I don't remember the bible say anything about Adam and Eve having tails though, but in this case the evidence speaks against the text, as happens more often.




And the truth comes out. "Evolution doesn't disprove God. Unless you look at the evidence for evolution and compare it to God's word. Then it disproves God."

You're lying to yourself, but I'm not stupid enough not to see through your argument. You're trying to tell me that its ok to believe evolution because I can still believe in God, then you say that evolution disproves God. You don't have to believe that science shows evidence of creation, you just have to recognize that science does not show evidence of evolution.

Quote:

the smaller jaw is not only attached to the surrounding elements (food, radiation and so forth) but has had tenthousands of years of development behind itself.




No, because the device for which this 'development' can happen hasn't been proven to exist.

Mutations exist, but they do not aid evolution.

Quote:

The so called "modernd" nutrition is a fake argument because the smaller jaws where allready present during the ancient times and far back. The head shape and therefor the jaw of the previous "models" of the homo sapiens show a smooth transisition from big to small (or in this case smaller).




They found monkeys and concluded that they were early humans. Because they say so. There is no true smooth transition, just a bunch of well formed species that happen to have similar structures. This is nothing but circumstantial evidence for evolution, in order to make this assumption you should at least see some version of evolution in action. But we don't, so we cannot assume that these are transitions.

My argument on the other hand is based on modern observations of human development. To say that I'm lying about our diet causing early maturation, and thus slightly smaller jaws, is to say that scientists are lying. These are scientists words, not mine. If they're lying about this, then why couldn't they be lying about evolution?

Quote:

Simple. People claimed god created the flash and was throwing it onto them. Right now most of us know what causes a flash.




Science is constantly changing its beliefs. What some idiot thought years ago doesn't change what we know to be true today. We know that evolution is impossible. Its just taking a while for everyone else to catch up. One day, people will look back and say, "Do you remember when we thought animals could just change into other animals for no reason?" And then they'll laugh.

Quote:

You dont have the slightess clue how science works then!




I know that when radiometric dating goes against the age a scientist assumes something to be, they just call the date contaminated and discard it. This is working within an established view. But that's sidetracking things.

Quote:

Evolution has a ton of back ups and every single part of the puzzle fits in very well. Some are still a question mark for us but this doesnt make the others wrong.




Then outline for me some real proof of evolution. Don't just assume that because animals are similar, they must have evolved. Show me how evolution works. The reason you can't is because you don't know how evolution even works. You just give me charts of animals (out of scale) and say they must have evolved because they happen to look the same.

Quote:

1.) it has nothing to do with matter or how it was created. this is not the point or problem of evolution at all.




Ok.

Quote:

2.) evolution does not have a goal. there is nothing like "lets ditch legs to get wings". It is not a pimp my dna




Wow, this is mindblowing information that I never knew. Please, I already know how evolution works. I understand the theory better than you do, which is why I don't believe it. If you ever looked below the surface of evolution you would probably feel the same way.

Quote:

3.) There is nothing like good or bad mutations because good and bad are not terms of science in this case.




Actually there is something like a good or bad mutation, which is why I stopped using those terms. Its more accurate to call them progressive or regressive. The difference between evolution and dysgenics.

Quote:

There is nothing like "junk" dna.




My point exactly.

But you don't even know what junk DNA is, or what it does. While we don't understand it completely, we have found a purpose for most of this supposed junk or non-coding DNA. It doesn't necessarily code a protein, but it does work. Junk DNA is an example of a time when we'll look back and say something like, "Remember when we thought rain was God's tears?" Except it'll be more like, "Remember when we didn't know the purpose of junk DNA?"

Quote:

Its random and without any goal or direction.




Yup, and when you apply disorder to order, it never creates anything new. Although it can just so happen to be good.

Quote:

transition fossils: are nearly impossible to find because you would need a million of them and all need to be one strain.




Which is why the fossil record is circumstantial.

Quote:

The lack of it is not an argument at all.




Fine, but it certainly isn't an argument for it.

Quote:

the list contains a trex with tiny and useless arms




And of course you know its useless because you have a pet t-rex? I can imagine all sorts of uses for it. It may not have the use arms on a human being might have, but its all subjective. Still, at best this is proof that an animal can degrade genetically over time. Ok. Now show me how a bacteria can become a man.

Quote:

the fact that only 1% of any animal group survives on the long run makes intelligent design pointless




How? If animals aren't fit, living in a fallen world they will die off. That's the fact of the matter. This isn't proof of evolution, this is once again an attack on creation. Is it really this hard for you to show an example of true evolution?

You keep showing the similarity between animals. So what? They were designed by the same creator, and they all live on the same planet. Once again, if an animal needs to fly, you give it wings or some form thereof. You don't give it magical space powder that allows it to fly without the aid of anything physical.

Quote:

the gills of a fish produce some sort of bacteria once stranded on the dry land. Though this bacteria is useful in some ways the gills are usless for any land creature.




I don't get the point of this example. If they can survive underwater on fish gills, then they certiainly aren't stranded to dry land. That's just common sense.

The gills are allowing them to live? Then that just shows how an animal can become a parasite if the environmental conditions change. It can't evolve its own gills.

Quote:

Same as our appendix and our w.teeth.




I don't know why I even bother anymore. Your third molars are about as useless as your second and first molars. They chew food. Certain mismatched genetics and our modern diet have made them cause problems, but removing them causes its own problems.

Quote:

there is nothing like micro or macro evolution




Fine, if you want to play the semantics game then I'll start calling them small-scale mutations and large-scale mutations. Does that make you happier?

Quote:

this are made up terms from creationists to disprove evolution. This tells a lot about the intention of this people.




The difference between the two is unimportant. Neither of them happen.

Quote:

The main idea (that can be read in darwins work) is that it sounds reasonable for us that a child looks like its parents, though it shows own and different attributes (size, shape aso).
If you agree on this and on the common science attributes then there should be no doubt that with enough time the entire look and shape could change.




Darwin came up with this conclusion because we didn't know much of anything about DNA yet, so he didn't understand why the change in a creature is limited by its genetics. Please, you're referencing outdated opinions that science has grown out of.

Quote:

the stunning fact that they share more or less the same similarities.




I remain unstunned.

Quote:

bringing me back to the thumb and neck




If the thumb were rotated by 30 degrees it wouldn't fit into the skeletal structure of the hand bone. If we didn't have a neck, we would have to turn our entire bodies in order to look in a different direction. You've allowed evolution to completely confuse you. Dark Ages, indeed.

Quote:

A whale shares the same structural main set up as a bird.




I know, but this fact goes against the modern idea of evolution since mammals evolved seperate from birds and therefore should not have similar structures. So you've proved my point. Similar structures are kind of a hinderance for evolution, because then the evolutionary timeline gets all confused when you consider that birds have just as much in common with mammals as they do reptiles, even though they should have nothing in common with us. Feathers are far more similar to hair than they are scales. In fact, many geneticists scoff at the idea of scales turning into feathers. They're so far removed from each other. But don't let the evolutionists in on this fact, because that destroys their assumptions.

You give me all of these charts when all you need to say is, "Animals look the same, so they must have come from the same ancestor." No. It just goes to show that in order to exist on the same world, if we want to grab something, we'll need a hand similar to any other hand, if we want to walk, we need arms and legs similar to other arms and legs. There's no getting around this fact. This either shows that we came from a common ancestor, or that we were all designed by the same designer.

It does not prove either conclusion beyond the shadow of a doubt, so quit bringing it up.

Common ancestry is not evolution. So quit trying to prove that it exists. What matters is if there's a mechanism for making a fin turn into a hand. We have not seen this mechanism. Since we have not, then you're just making assumptions. Assuming is not scientific.

Quote:

during the area of the ocean living forms we wont find a human being.




None of this can be proved unless you can prove evolution can happen in the first place. Please explain to me the PROCESS of evolution, not its REMNANTS.

There is no real process, so I don't suppose it'll be easy, but you can try if you want.

I mean, "Oh my gosh, all animals have bones, this certainly must be evolution." Is not real proof of evolution. "Oh my gosh, this germ just wrote its own genetic data and gained a feature it never had before." Is evolution.

Honestly, can you hear yourself typing? You're saying that since animals have bones, they must have evolved. That's the most paper thin argument I've ever heard. Since we don't know for sure what happened millions of years ago, the rest is conjecture. Prove to me that evolution can happen, not that bones can happen, and then we'll have a debate on our hands. Otherwise you're just wasting time.



The following quote from another website will better say what I'm trying to say about your similarities between animals argument.

Quote:

You might ask, “How do they know all of the creatures represented on the tree were really horses? How do they know they weren’t cows, goats, or deer?” The flippant answer is that they must be horses because they all have one single toe, which distinguishes them from cows and goats and other animals that have cloven hooves.

But the animals in the alleged horse evolutionary tree don’t all have one toe. Some of them have cloven hooves. They have to, to show how the horse’s hoof evolved from multiple toes to a single toe. So, how do they know that an animal with cloven hooves is really a horse, or a horse ancestor? They don’t, of course.

For that matter, how do they know that an extinct animal with just one toe is a horse? They don’t. The common test for determining if two critters are the same species is to mate them and see if they produce fertile offspring. They can’t do that with bones. So, there is no objective test. There is only subjective judgment. If an animal looks enough like a horse that it might be a horse, but different enough that it clearly isn’t a horse, then someone declares that it is a horse ancestor. You have to take it by faith that the expert is right.

Fossil creatures are classified on the basis of appearance, and that appearance is inferred from the bones. This method is clearly far from foolproof. Appearance can be misleading. If you had nothing other than the bones of a zebra to work from, you might conclude that a zebra is a horse, but it isn’t. On the other hand, some true horses, such as the little Icelandic horses and large Clydesdale horses, look sufficiently different from wild horses that one might think they are not horses if one only had bones to work with.

There is a great variety in horses today. That fact is readily apparent in the Tournament of Roses Parade every year. Next year, try to watch the KTLA coverage with Bob Eubanks and Stephanie Edwards because they don’t cut to a commercial every time an equestrian unit comes around the corner. Apparently the two things Bob Eubanks likes best are (1) horses, and (2) talking about horses (not necessarily in that order). By the end of the parade you will have seen overwhelming evidence that man has bred so many wonderfully different varieties of horses. There is no argument about that! But you won’t see an equestrian unit consisting of riders mounted on creatures that evolved from horses. That’s because artificial selection produces new varieties, but it doesn’t produce new species. Varieties are not, as Darwin believed, “incipient species.”

All modern horses have undivided hooves. If it is true, as evolutionists like to say, that “the present is the key to the past”, one would have to assume that all extinct horses also had undivided hooves. But, in order to show how the single toe evolved, one has to display “horses” from the past that had two, three, four, or five toes. Therefore, creatures with multiple toes are arbitrarily classified as primitive horses just so they can be called modern horse ancestors.

We have no doubt that if there were any evidence for horse evolution, the Field Museum would show it. The fact that they just show an unlabeled drawing of a tree and horse-like silhouettes is silent admission that there is no evidence. Although we would prefer that the Field Museum would come right out and say so, we will settle for their display of lack of evidence.




http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i5f.htm
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/17/06 04:57

the short story:

Equidae ... the family of horses including the zebra

mid long story:
+Hyracotherium... a terapod creature, 55million years b.c. about 50cm height. 4 toes front, 3 toes back legs. Bent back, small neck. small parts of scarf-skin at the toe tips.
+Mesohippus: second stage of development of the horse. 40million y. b.c.
+Anchitherium: 22m.y.b.c .... only 3 toes front and 3 in the back legs
+Hipparios: 11m.y.b.c, strong deformed toes
+Equus: the "modern" horse 2-3 m.y.b.c, one toe

a couple of thousand years ago the common horse died out in america and was "reimported" 400 years ago. The funny thing is that the main source for horses and the main evolution (fossils aso) has taken place in north america.


Using horses as an argument against evolution is redicilous in the first place.


now the collecting of evidence starts:
1.) timeline: radiation messurements fit to the development time line of the horse. Fossils found have the age they need to have.

2.) transitions: the line from a 4 toes animal to a one toe horse has all needed development stages. Adding all of those "so nothing saying bones or skeletal systems" (as you would state) into a small thumbnail cinema would make a perfect morphing from A to B

3.) obserable facts: horses have degenerated thumbs. Atavismus also shows from time to time extra thumbs.
(whales with back legs, Hypertrichose are other examples).
Those fit into the fossil sheme we know.

4.) localisation: if the world scenery is changing from forrest to tundra like sceneries animals have to addapt to survive (longer legs for faster running, better teeth aso).
The found transitions fit perfectly into the climatic changes. (as well as continental drift as far as genesis is concerned )

The bottom line is simple: if it look like a donkey and smells like a donkey, its most likely a donkey.


I wont address any of the other points from above but this one because it reduces all you have said to the simple fact that you dont understand evolution.

-->..What matters is if there's a mechanism for making a fin turn into a hand. We have not seen this mechanism....

For the last time, evolution is not a force or mechanism for creating anything. Do you understand that?!
You agree on mutation and the fact the human body can change thru time.
You agree on "rewritten" dna.
You agree on natural selection.
You agree on dna data passed from one genereation to the next.
You dont doubt the fossils found, you dont doubt the adaption of species into different environments.

Its simple: you believe in the theory of evolution, you just dont want to admit it

The only missing thing is that you cant understand that those changes can be radical as well... arms getting fins or the other way round.
Though its a medical fact that our current fingers are thinner and longer then 50.000 years ago.

Now you will argue again something about: "Common ancestry is not evolution"

Then you ignore the fact that the whale fin is a simply degenerated human like arm. You will then say "oh, all animals have bones...thats an evidence for evolutions".


you wouldnt see any form of evidence even if its a big fat train heading right at you. Not because you cant but because you dont like to.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/17/06 09:45

Quote:

Those leg nubs on snakes have been known to be used during mating. They have a purpose.




On almost all snake species, leg nubs disappear long before the snake mates.

Quote:

The whole point of this argument is to attack my belief that God created anything.




I don't want to attack your belief, but I thought the main goal of creationism was to get accepted as a scientific theory, not a belief.

Quote:

Typically flightless birds have uses for their flightless wings. In mating rituals, intimidation of predators, etc.


.

Mating seems to be a handy argument to explain vestigial limbs. The wing stubs are not even visible on the Kiwi without a close examination, and thus can hardly be used in mating rituals.

Quote:

The coccyx is used to aid in the birthing process, as well as adding support to our skeletal structure.




Can you explain how a bone dangling from the end of the spine can "support our skeletal structure"? At least, according to Wikipedia it can serve as a sort of shock absorber when someone violently sits down - maybe creationists should update their websites.

Quote:

Its an interesting tactic of evolutionists to change the meaning of a word like vestigial to mean




I was referring to organs inherited from evolutionary ancestors that do not fulfil its original purpose anymore. Call them whatever you want. If we were designed, then how could we have those organs, whatever their name?

Quote:



Evolution is founded on materialism because it lacks physical proof. Materialism is what keeps it going. You try and prove that nature created life because you can't believe God did it.

-----------------------------

I'm very much enjoying the fact that you guys have given up on defending evolution, and have instead turned to attack my faith in God




Irish, I had also enjoyed this debate so far. Unlike other creationists you had at least attempted to give some serious arguments for your point of view. You're the last remaining creationist here and such steadfastness is admirable. Nevertheless, I think most people following the threads would agree that your arguments were refuted so far and you've withdrawn to repeating your belief that "good mutations don't exist". This is normally where the debate ends. Belief can't be discussed.

That you're now coming with the crap we had "given up on defending evolution, and have instead turned to attack your faith" is far below the level of your previous posts.

In case you've forgotten: The debate about mutations ended with some estimates about the probability and time scale of what you call "progressive mutations". The result was that large scale mutations can happen within 100,000 years, which is an instant compared to the 2 billion years of life on earth. As you haven't come forward with any arguments against that - please correct me if I'm wrong here - the normal conclusion would be that such mutations, and thus evolution, indeed were possible. If you still believe otherwise, that's cool - but then it's a matter of belief and not of science.

If you think that the evolution discusson is not over yet, then it's time to come forward with some proof or evidence whatsoever that mutations can't happen.

Also you're invited to come forward and explain the becoming of life other than by evolution. I would have a large list of questions for you. But if as you say discussing it would be "attacking your faith", it's ok with me and I'll stop. This thread, as mentioned in the first post, is about discussing scientific arguments and not faith.

And please get informed about materalism. It might prevent that you expose yourself to ridicule by posting such nonsense like "evolution is based on materialism". I accept science and evolution, but I'm not a materialist and most scientists aren't either.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/17/06 15:32

I do think that many scientists ARE indeed materialists, or least recognize a very bright line between the natural world and the metaphysical.

When religious people worry that science attacks the core of their beliefs, I do think that they have a justification for this. Science does indeed follow materialist principles when searching for naturalistic explanations of phenomena.

This is all fine and uncontroversial when you explain the motion of waves, or the reason why weather patterns exist, and so on. But when it infringes on something that people seem to hold dear, like the origins of life, then it becomes an attack, even if it wasnt meant to be.

While science does not, and never can, disprove the existence of a creator or a divinity, it certainly disproves many of the principles and stories told in creation myths and so on, such as Genesis. We know now that the story of creation in Genesis is untrue, plain and simple. It just didn't happen that way.

Catholics for instance claim to able to reconcile this, and say the Biblical stories arent to be taken literally. Where you run into trouble is with the fundamentalists, usually American protestants, who demand that you believe everything in the bible, and they have the nerve to say that Catholics arent true Christians.. apparently Jesus was an American Baptist!

However, it seems that ultimately there are two kinds of religious thought; one that adapts and is malleable, and one that demands absolute certainty and unchanging faith. As they say, the tree that bends in the wind doesnt break.

As yet we still know so little about about the Universe that we dont even understand the exact mechanics of the subatomic particles, let alone the origins of the Universe. The demand for certainty in life, the need for absolute truth, is evidence of a lack of imagination and moral courage.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 01:18

I don't have time to respond in full right now, maybe later tonight, but probably not until tomorrow.

Fair enough, though, no more insinuating what evolution is or isn't based on. Its more or less irrelevant, because materialism or not, if evolution is or isn't true is the point of this discussion at this time. While in my opinion, evolution should have died out long ago (as viewed by scientists' growing skepticism), I was simply saying the only reason it was still around was because people are holding onto the ideals of materialism more than evolution. But that's pointless.

I have a few chores to take care of, and then I think I'm gonna be getting together with my friends for the night. I'm looking forward to responding in full later, and giving you guys a run for your money.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 02:04

Quote:

While in my opinion, evolution should have died out long ago (as viewed by scientists' growing skepticism)




Sorry, you are wrong--so wrong i cant begin explain why.

Suffice to to say that there is no "growing skepticism" among scientist. Only a lingering skepticism from ignorant poeple who refuse to believe anything they cant see or touch, unless of course it's written in a book 2000 years old.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 05:18

Quote:

Using horses as an argument against evolution is redicilous in the first place.




I wasn't. There is no direct proof that evolution can't happen. I can't prove that there isn't some kind of space magic that allows invisible fairies to fly, but I can prove that there is no evidence for it. Simply a lack of proof, or evidence that it is impossible, which itself calls the theory into question.

Quote:

Adding all of those "so nothing saying bones or skeletal systems" (as you would state) into a small thumbnail cinema would make a perfect morphing from A to B




Actually no it wouldn't. There would be size discrepencies, certain features would appear and then disappear again and sometimes reappear. When you look at the picture as a whole, and stop focusing on one or two features, it wouldn't flow all together as well as you'd like.

Quote:

Atavismus also shows from time to time extra thumbs




Humans are sometimes born with a sixth finger, but we don't believe we evolved from six fingered apes. The data for the finger is already there, some mutation or similar problem with the DNA caused the data for the sixth finger (nothing new being written since we already have fingers) to appear. Evolution inaction.

Quote:

horses have degenerated thumbs.




Honestly, the best you can do to show me that a cell turned into man is to say that horses have 'useless' thumbs? Well, I'm going to assume that by 'thumbs' you're referring to what are sometimes called the splint bones. These resemble thumbs in no way whatsoever, except that they are made of bone. In fact, when you look at the picture of the actual skeletal structure, it doesn't really even look like a thumb at all, from even the most layman of perspectives. The structure and placement just doesn't match up.



Quote:

The horse’s splint bones serve several important functions. They strengthen the leg and foot bones, very important because of the enormous stress that galloping puts on the legs. They also provide attachment points for important muscles. And they form a protective groove that houses the suspensory ligament, a vital elastic brace that supports the horse’s weight as it walks.




Quote:

(whales with back legs,




These aren't legs. These bones are attachment points on the pelvis, specifically for the genitals, similar to these horse 'toes' you refer to. Every now and then a whale is known to have abbarant morphs with useless bone structures that are an anomoly to the typical whale structure. Its unknown what causes these extraneous bones to appear, but like a sixth human finger, does it really matter?

Here's a picture of your supposed whale 'leg'.



Mm hm. Looks JUST like a leg to me. Besides, this isn't attached the vertibrate column, which we would expect the remnants of a leg to be. Every now and then some whales are born with small 1 inch long chunks of bone besides this hump, usually fused to the pelvis and this is called a leg. So maybe we can physically see this leg dangling off the side of the whale?

There is an unofficial account of a whale with a 'bump' (it was about 5.5 inches (as you guys would probably call it about 14 centimeters)) with bone in it about where one might expect legs to have been (near the pelvis). Compared to the average size of any given whale this places the bump well within 'who cares?' range, which is compounded by the fact that these bone structures have no resemblence to, nor could they even logically have come from, legs. So your little children's stories of evolutionary leftovers quickly fall apart under true scientific scrutiny. Please, feel free to try again.

Crap, there's a stupid 'back' button on the mouse and I lost everything after this....Erm. This may be a little rushed now.

Quote:

if it look like a donkey and smells like a donkey, its most likely a donkey.




Except the fossil record doesn't provide this kind of observation, so there's no parallel.

Quote:

For the last time, evolution is not a force or mechanism for creating anything. Do you understand that?!




No, you don't understand. Something created the entire variety of well ordered species, that are obviously properly designed (whether by chance or by a creator). There is some force. Evolution kind of encompasses within it natural selection, mutation, and all of that jazz. Some components of evolution are a force, namely mutations. They are a force, they're a mechanism per se. Evolution itself is just the idea that random chance changed a germ into a human after billions of years.

Quote:

You agree on mutation and the fact the human body can change thru time.




I believe mutations introduce disorder to order. The body can change, but only within the realm of dysgenics. Look it up.

Quote:

You agree on "rewritten" dna.




Genetically rewritten for the 'worst'. Of course, rarely the 'worst' will turn out to be better for the creature, ie sickle cell anemia or loss of enzyme production leading to immunity to penicillin. Great, but it still doesn't show how a germ can become anything other than a germ.

Quote:

You dont doubt the fossils found, you dont doubt the adaption of species into different environments.




No one doubts fossils. What I doubt is the imagination and fuzzy science used to interpret the so-called evolutionary timeline. But that's a whole other debate.

Quote:

Its simple: you believe in the theory of evolution, you just dont want to admit it




Nothing in life is simple. But the simple response to this statement is, "No."

Quote:

The only missing thing is that you cant understand that those changes can be radical as well... arms getting fins or the other way round.




No. We have seen no evidence that could lead us to believe this is possible. At least no evidence that stands up under scientific scrutiny.

Quote:

Though its a medical fact that our current fingers are thinner and longer then 50.000 years ago.




So? This really has no evolutionary advantage and besides, humans don't have the same natural pressures as other animals. We're also growing taller, which has nothing to do with evolution, just diet. If it turned out that was the same deal with fingers, I would be far from surprised.

Quote:

Then you ignore the fact that the whale fin is a simply degenerated human like arm.




The only thing worse than a human arm for swimming is a degenerated human arm. A whale fin is a whale fin, just because its made out of molecules that are similar to a human arm, doesn't mean it has to have anything to do with a human arm. This is just an assumption based on the belief that these things couldn't have been created, and the only alternative is that they were evolved. That's not scientific proof, that's wishful thinking.

Quote:

you wouldnt see any form of evidence even if its a big fat train heading right at you. Not because you cant but because you dont like to.




If that's true, then why did I used to believe in evolution?

Quote:

On almost all snake species, leg nubs disappear long before the snake mates.




I'm just telling you what I've read.

Quote:

Primitive snakes — such as, pythons and boa constrictors — do have nub-like legs beneath their skins and tiny, half-inch claws that protrude out above the nubs but nestle close to their bellies near the anus. Actually, even the nubs are not legs but rather a remnant of upper-leg (thigh or femur) bones. The males still use the spurs — but only during courtship and fighting — not to walk. No other snakes have legs.




http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2005-06-10-wonderquest_x.htm

So they serve a purpose, the idea that they used to be legs is conjecture.

Quote:

I don't want to attack your belief, but I thought the main goal of creationism was to get accepted as a scientific theory, not a belief.




Maybe for some creationists. All I ask is that we not completely assume that evolution is true, because it causes misconceptions and limited thinking. Why would I want to replace one limited thinking with another? Working within the framework that everything was created is just as detrimental (to science anyway).

Quote:

Mating seems to be a handy argument to explain vestigial limbs. The wing stubs are not even visible on the Kiwi without a close examination, and thus can hardly be used in mating rituals.




I can't argue that at this time, because I don't know enough about it. What I can point out is that its unscientific to assume that at our current level of knowledge, that we know everything. True science would look at our lack of knowledge, and instead of getting all excited that our initial understanding proves evolution or anything else, we test that hypothesis. Assumptions are counter productive and unscientific. Is it a coincidence that the more we learn about these structures or organs that we didn't know much about to begin with that we decided, "Ok, they really do have a purpose."

Secondly, this isn't proof of evolution, its meant to call into question a creator. I don't know anyone on the side of creation that would argue that animals can't lose function (via mutation), or outright lose structures. But its a complex topic, and still is a farcry from a germ becoming a worm, and then a fish and a person.

Quote:

Can you explain how a bone dangling from the end of the spine can "support our skeletal structure"? At least, according to Wikipedia it can serve as a sort of shock absorber when someone violently sits down - maybe creationists should update their websites.




As opposed to a website that let's anyone and everyone write and update its content?

It supports our organs, aids in birthing, in bowel movements, and anchors muscles. It works in tandem with certain muscles that it anchors to provide all of these services and more.

Quote:

Unlike other creationists you had at least attempted to give some serious arguments for your point of view. You're the last remaining creationist here and such steadfastness is admirable.




Thanks!

Quote:

Nevertheless, I think most people following the threads would agree that your arguments were refuted so far and you've withdrawn to repeating your belief that "good mutations don't exist".




I've still got some steam left in me. And the existence of progressive mutations go straight to the heart of the matter. That's why I'm trying to focus on them. Its the foudnation of the entire theory of evolution.

When we cause over 400 mutations on a species, and realize that not one of them has written any new data, we run into problems. These current experiments with flies have shown that you can cause speciation, but still not write anything new. Speciation is not proof of evolution. Its proof that non-evolutionary changes to chromosomes can cause breeding barriers. Great. But the definition of a species is kind of fuzzy to begin with. Unless you take all 8 (I'll admit that I'm pulling this number out of my butt, its probably closer to 5) of its meanings into account. Although not all of them can overlap.

Quote:

In case you've forgotten: The debate about mutations ended with some estimates about the probability and time scale of what you call "progressive mutations".




Can you tell me, if we don't observe mutations writing orderly data, then would you still believe that your calculations, and equations are correct? Scientifically, one would assume that they're leaving something out and go back and try and organize the data better to come to a more accurate equation.

Quote:

The result was that large scale mutations can happen within 100,000 years, which is an instant compared to the 2 billion years of life on earth.




Ok, if these mutations cause disorder or add disorder (which in some cases happens to be better for the species) then they aren't going to pile up and become large scale mutations. They'll either have no evolutionary effect, or they'll 'lose' data (which when piled up does no good for evolution's sake though it may help the species), or they'll be selected out from the species via natural selection because its harmful or reduces fitness just so.

I'm not just assuming that this is what happens, I'm basing this off of decades worth (until the modern day) of genetics experiments.

Quote:

As you haven't come forward with any arguments against that




No, scientists did the work for me.

Quote:

then it's time to come forward with some proof or evidence whatsoever that mutations can't happen.




I hope that we're on the same page, because its clear that I believe mutations can happen. They just pretty much not good for species. Even if they end up being good, genetically it still reduces order. I don't think the logic of this is very debatable. If it were, the experiments would disprove my point.

Quote:

Also you're invited to come forward and explain the becoming of life other than by evolution.




I'll be more than happy to do that another time. Right now, debating four or five evolutionists at the same time is VERY time consuming. Adding on more to the discussion is gonna be probably more than I can handle.

Quote:

But if as you say discussing it would be "attacking your faith", it's ok with me and I'll stop.




I'm saying that it seemed to me you were trying to shift the discussion away from proof of evolution and towards disproof of creation. A word like attack may be too strong, but I don't think I meant it the way you took it. I meant attack in a friendly way, if you take my meaning. We can discuss it, but I can only handle so much right now.

Quote:

This is all fine and uncontroversial when you explain the motion of waves, or the reason why weather patterns exist, and so on.




That's because the motion of waves is just a conclusion about nature. Evolution itself calls into question whether nor not creation even happened. So you're right, we don't care about waves because it doesn't call our beliefs into question. What do you think the purpose of talkorigins is?

I think I covered everything. Ugh, I have a headache. But its been fun, nonetheless. Now I need to stop ignoring my friends
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 05:19

That was me. From now on, unless I log on to confirm a post as anonymous, then it wasn't me.
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 05:42

A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?


i will reply to the other points as well if you like (you made a ton of mistakes. one and the biggest is the misunderstanding of mutation and evolution...still).

But i would like this question to be answered first. (and please no "because he liked to do so" babling)
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 07:56

We see a lot of creatures today that would look suspiciously like transitional forms if all we had were bones to go by. Yet we know, by their existence, that they are not transitional because we can OBSERVE them in their natural environment, dressed in more than just their bones. So it really comes down to how accurate the evolutionary timeline really is. After all, if all of these animals weren't seperated by 100,000s to 1,000,000s of years, then the question doesn't really need to be answered.

You assume that there is no question to the accuracy of the dating methods. When they give an unexpected date, it must be contaminated. Much like coal. They still can't figure out why coal has 14C in it, and yet it can't have 14C in it because coal takes millions of years to form. So they'll do whatever it takes to find that evidence.

That's just one out of hundreds discrepencies with the dating methods.

I'm not going to type out an explanation. It would be redundant. Here are some alternative sources to consider. Just keep in mind, skepticism is healthy. There's no need to dismiss these outright, although skepticism of skepticism can be healthy too.

The first link is pretty interesting. Although maybe not as important as the other links.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v8i9n.htm
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v8i8f.htm
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i10f.htm
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i3f.htm

I have a question for you. The morphology of the horse doesn't really fit in very well with other animals. I mean, in a more general slide show you've got arms, wings of creatures that all look fairly similar in design (bats, primates, humans, etc). Then horses pop out of nowhere with their strangely designed arms, and you get told its like that, just because that's what the horse needs. Well, if the slideshow of life is so important to you, then how come its not important when a creature doesn't fit this slideshow?
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 15:13

As has been explained a 100000 times, ALL forms are "transitional", in fact all life is constantly in transition. The notion of "transitional" forms, missing links, etc, are human constructs created to highlight this fact.

This "science against evolution" website is a joke, you cant quote this as scientific evidence--it's a loony bin.
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 17:37

I'll bet there aren't any Budhists contributing to that site, are there Irish?

They have played down the Christianity aspect, but there are still references to Christianity and religion to be found there.

Furthermore, the site appears to have a political rather than scientific objective. The articles are only refuting scientific evidence and methods that support evolution theory by any means possible. i.e. They have an agenda.

I wonder what their alternative theory is....... could it be "The Christian God of American fundamentalists created everything! Yay God! If you're happy and you know it..."

As for your idea that science is a materialistic belief system (and out to get you good, God fearing Christians, no less). This is not valid since science doesn't require faith. Push a button, a light turns on. It happens whether you want to believe it or not. I bet my toaster oven will work just as well for a Muselman as it will for a Christian.

I was going to add something about whether you really believe the stories written Arabs living in tents and huts thousands of years ago, but of course you do. You probably believe most of the sensationalist crap you watch on T.V as well, and get riled up by the oratory of television evangelists. In which case, it really seems silly trying to reason with you. My appologies if I'm wrong.
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 18:09

attacking dating methods is quite puny because its not the radiation method alone that determines age.

One way more simple is the geological one.
short: the earth "hull" itself is a large time line.


though i still didnt get any answer to my qustion at all.


another big mistake when talking about evolution is to think its a line with a target at the end. Its nonesense to think that our current horse is the best result of evolution. as a matter of fact its the only one that survived for a couple of reasons. This is also why there is nothing like good or bad mutation in general or good or bad evolution.

you can not answer the questions "are gills a good or bad mutation" because the terminus good or bad is not related to the result at all (gills in this case).
Its like asking if 1 is a good or bad number.

timeline of the horses (sorry just german):

Taking me back to my statement that only 1% of new species survive on the long run (something you found uninteresting as far as i can remeber. Though combined with everything said so far just another brick that fits into the smooth sheme)


the argument for "familiar" animals or horse like creatures is far more an argument for evolution then against it.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 18:18

Quote:

As has been explained a 100000 times, ALL forms are "transitional", in fact all life is constantly in transition. The notion of "transitional" forms, missing links, etc, are human constructs created to highlight this fact.




Since we haven't seen this transition happening, you have yet to convince me of this. You keep saying it happens, but whenever you guys give me an example, I've been able to point out how those examples are non-evolutionary changes to a species. No matter how many times you don't evolve a creature, its never going to evolve. Of course, I'm wrong because I'm crazy, not because I use science and logic to refute the point.

Quote:

This "science against evolution" website is a joke, you cant quote this as scientific evidence--it's a loony bin.




That's because you'll listen to whatever you're told like a sheep. That's fine, since you don't grasp the logic of specific arguments for or against evolution, so you need someone to figure it out for you. If that works for you, ok. It doesn't work for me.

The scientific purity of your responses Matt has humbled me. How could I not see that science has been wrong this whole time because everyone who disagrees with you is crazy. My eyes have been opened, thank you.

Quote:

I'll bet there aren't any Budhists contributing to that site, are there Irish?




I didn't suppose you guys were stupid enough not to believe they weren't christians, but that's not the point. If you have a problem with their arguments, or if you notice inconsistencies, please do elaborate. However, your retaliation of, "They're just simple minded children who don't know a thing because they probably all believe in God," isn't very scientific. I don't claim not to believe evolutionists because they're stupid, but simply because I disagree with the conclusions they come to or I think they stop short of discovering the truth if it means being able to jump to the conclusion that evolution must be true. That doesn't make them stupid, or anything like that, it just makes them biased. Everyone's biased, so unlike you guys I'm not trying to claim there's some huge discrepency between creationists and evolutionists, because I don't need to belittle your side to prove how science has no place in evolution.

It is interesting that you guys resort to that sort of thing, though. You'd think with science being on your side, you wouldn't have to. But, whatever.

Could you imagine if I were doing what you guys were doing? Every time you gave me some evidence of evolution I just yelled, "It can't be true because whoever came up with that is crazy!" The crap would hit the fan real fast. But when you do it, its just because you're too enlightened to use science as an argument. You don't need to after all because you've got more people on your side, and that makes you right.

This response isn't really referring to JCL or Marco or anyone else who's managed to argue calmy, rationaly, and fairly. Although I don't think there really was anyone else.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 18:51

Quote:

I have a question for you. The morphology of the horse doesn't really fit in very well with other animals. I mean, in a more general slide show you've got arms, wings of creatures that all look fairly similar in design (bats, primates, humans, etc). Then horses pop out of nowhere with their strangely designed arms, and you get told its like that, just because that's what the horse needs. Well, if the slideshow of life is so important to you, then how come its not important when a creature doesn't fit this slideshow?




What exactly do you mean with 'doesn't fit the slideshow' here? There are all kinds of different animals that wouldn't fit your slideshow then... Take for example the billions of insects, bugs and more specialistic creatures like the cameleon;
()

Your distinction is artificial, you can't deny that those creatures do exist. Thinking of one of them as being a bit odd or strange/not fitting is silly, what makes them not fit into the slideshow? The lack of 'missing links', intermediate forms etc. is a non-argument, there are plenty of those available... And you shouldn't forget a lot of species have died out from which the new species are still walking around, so we may very well see common features between a goat and a cow, yet the direct link inbetween might be vague. That's still no prove of the contrary in my opinion, and this would be when we would entirely ignore the fossils. About the bones thing you brought up, from most species that already have died out, there's not really much more left then bones, from which still a lot can be derived. Definately more than just size and weight . I'm not sure what you've meant with 'dressed in more than just bones', but suppose you mean colors and other features of the animals that are not similar, they all use the same content, just in different sizes, small differences in shapes and forms and more. So what? There are plenty of pencils made by us, we all can distinguish them rather easily as pencils, you know why? Keyfeatures and things a pencils would need to have in order to be called a pencil. Why wouldn't this work the same with things that are defined yet as such, but who do share a lot of similarities? You imply it's illogic, I think it's perfectly reasonable.

Quote:

You assume that there is no question to the accuracy of the dating methods. When they give an unexpected date, it must be contaminated. Much like coal. They still can't figure out why coal has 14C in it, and yet it can't have 14C in it because coal takes millions of years to form. So they'll do whatever it takes to find that evidence.




I think this is kinda outdated too... We now much more about 14C now, 14C in the atmosphere can contaminate it...

Wikipedia;
Quote:

1. New 14C is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add "modern" 14C to coal are:

* Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
* Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
* Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.

Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure.




It doesn't matter if it gives a 50.000 years as a dating, it's near the limit, what would be right if it's contaminated by the atmosphere or other agents, this contamination can be more, can be less too.

Quote:

Since we never see things appearing out of nowhere, then tell me why your example even matters now.




Sorry to bring this up, but.. irony...

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 18:51

Quote:

attacking dating methods is quite puny because its not the radiation method alone that determines age.




Well, then since you bring up other methods, then tell me why they all conflict with each other? I would ignore the other ones if I were you.

Quote:

another big mistake when talking about evolution is to think its a line with a target at the end.




Ugh. Please, stop trying to educate me on evolution. I've been told what evolution is my entire life. I live in America.

I know that its not a straight line. However, just because you find a bunch of skeletons and add a fancy tree to them doesn't prove anything about them. You have to first show me how evolution can work in the first place, and then prove that your timeline is indesputible. Unfortunately for you, you can do neither.

Quote:

This is also why there is nothing like good or bad mutation in general or good or bad evolution.




Yes there is. If a mutation causes a creature to be more fit in a given environment, its good. I don't understand what's so difficult about that. It has happened. If the mutation causes the creature to be less fit then its bad.

On the other hand, if a good mutation is caused by a loss of information, then its regressive and for the sake of evolution it is bad, because evolution requires that the creature be more fit AND write data from scratch that makes sense. That never happens, so good or bad does exist, but doesn't necessarily have anything to do with evolution. Evolution requires progressive or non-regressive mutations. You keep showing your little diagrams used to convince children, but I really don't care. If evolution can't happen, then that calls into question every other aspect of it. And since your dating methods aren't precise, then that calls into question whether that diagram is based on truth, or assumptions.

Quote:

you can not answer the questions "are gills a good or bad mutation" because the terminus good or bad is not related to the result at all (gills in this case)




MY POINT EXACTLY! Thank you. Now that we're on the same page, let me tell you that if these gills appear out of nowhere, that's a progressive mutation. Because it wrote the data for gills from scratch, in which case in the context of water its a good mutation because the creature is now more fit in water as opposed to less fit.

Since we never see things appearing out of nowhere, then tell me why your example even matters now.
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/18/06 20:02

Quote:

On the other hand, if a good mutation is caused by a loss of information, then its regressive and for the sake of evolution it is bad, because evolution requires that the creature be more fit AND write data from scratch that makes sense.


Wrong. Maybe we could call this IFE, Irish_Farmer's Evolution. Evolution as understood by biologists does NOT require data to be created from scratch at all. It only requires change and whether this change comes from deactivating gene expression, activating a dormant gene, inserting bases, or shuffling bases around is IRRELEVANT.

Quote:

Evolution requires progressive or non-regressive mutations.


Still wrong. Where did you get this idea in the first place?

Quote:

Since we never see things appearing out of nowhere, then tell me why your example even matters now.


If they appeared out of nowhere we would have creationism, but you are right: they don't.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/19/06 04:43

Quote:

Wrong. Maybe we could call this IFE, Irish_Farmer's Evolution. Evolution as understood by biologists does NOT require data to be created from scratch at all. It only requires change and whether this change comes from deactivating gene expression, activating a dormant gene, inserting bases, or shuffling bases around is IRRELEVANT.




Ok, so then that means you can find proof that a bacteria can become a man anywhere you want. Sounds convenient.

What I'm saying is that these different methods of mutation haven't led to any evolution (I'm talking about building up, not just change, because just regular old change doesn't explain how germs grew legs (yes I know germs didn't actually grow legs)) within actual creatures. I don't claim to know for sure why this is, but I think its because even the most simple of lifeforms are too complex to be able to be randomly rewritten to something that is more ordered or complex or whatever the word is than the original creature was.

Should I replace the word evolution with another term that doesn't just mean change, to make sure we're on the same page? Because if we're arguing that creatures can change, then we're both on the same side. I know animals can change, I just don't think that the kind of change we've observed can explain what evolution supposedly has done as a whole.

Quote:

Still wrong. Where did you get this idea in the first place?




I'll answer this in the next question. Short version: scientists.

Quote:

If they appeared out of nowhere we would have creationism, but you are right: they don't.




Compare the amount of genetic data in bacteria to that of, say, a human, or really any other complex creature (we could say bird if we really want). Obviously this genetic data came from somewhere. It had to be created randomly, but the point is that it had to be created. You say random chance did it, I say science doesn't know what did it at this time (since science is blind to God, which is ok for the sake of this argument). The point is that it came from somewhere. Am I wrong in assuming that this is what evolutionists believe? Or do you believe that the first living animal was extremely complex and contained all of the possible combinations of genetic data and slowly evolved down into all of the animals we see today?

Let's try an example. I'm a bird. First I evolve to lose my wings (over time, they shrink to nothingness), then I evolve to lose my feathers, and then I evolve to lose my beak, and then I evolve to lose my eyes. Tell me now, how all of these changes fall in the same category of a single cell becoming a person.

Would it not be fair to say that there are two kinds of mutations then? Because some mutations will cause this bird to become a wingless lump of featherless flesh (if it survives that long), and other mutations will cause lizards to grow feathers and beaks and specific lungs, and specific bone structure, and fly off.

This is why I say some mutations are relevant to evolution, and some are not. I don't see evolution simply as change, because some changes don't explain animals becoming more complex. I think the distinction is important. I also think that the only way you wouldn't want to distinguish the two is if you didn't think that there was evidence of the other kind happening (the kind I say is relevant to evolution). Otherwise even in that bird example, you can see this animal slowly degenerate into a useless lump of flesh and say, "Behold, the glory of evolution!"

edit:

Crap, I just saw phemox's post. I'll have to get back to that.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/19/06 06:22

Quote:

Quote:

As has been explained a 100000 times, ALL forms are "transitional", in fact all life is constantly in transition. The notion of "transitional" forms, missing links, etc, are human constructs created to highlight this fact.




Since we haven't seen this transition happening, you have yet to convince me of this. You keep saying it happens, but whenever you guys give me an example, I've been able to point out how those examples are non-evolutionary changes to a species. No matter how many times you don't evolve a creature, its never going to evolve. Of course, I'm wrong because I'm crazy, not because I use science and logic to refute the point.

Quote:

This "science against evolution" website is a joke, you cant quote this as scientific evidence--it's a loony bin.




That's because you'll listen to whatever you're told like a sheep. That's fine, since you don't grasp the logic of specific arguments for or against evolution, so you need someone to figure it out for you. If that works for you, ok. It doesn't work for me.

The scientific purity of your responses Matt has humbled me. How could I not see that science has been wrong this whole time because everyone who disagrees with you is crazy. My eyes have been opened, thank you.





Its difficult to argue calmly with someone who is not interested in the truth. So much evidence has been shown here for evolution, from Dinosaurs and birds, to moths and horses, that it becomes a simple case of you denying everything we say... you cant quote this nutcase site which obviously isnt a scientific site but a religous fundamentalist mouthpiece masquerading (and not very well) as a serious science site.

We have repeatedly explained the scientific method, the purpose of scientifc discourse and debate, the importance of empirical evidence, both circumstantial and direct, the varied corpus of scientifc data , inferences and conclusions that show with as close to certainy as science and mankind can ever come that not only does evolution happen, but that it continues to happen, to all life forms.

I see no reason to restate my case a million times for you, when you dont care about anything but your own supposed truths. There comes a time when I can dismiss someone as a bible beater and leave it at that.

I think we have treated you remarkably fairly, for someone with a view point so far out of the mainstream that most scientist wouldnt even dignify your arguements with a response.

If someone makes remarkable claims that are contrary to established science, it doesnt mean they are wrong. It does mean that you need extraordinary evidence to knock down the scientific edifice. Where is your evidence? Your research, in the field and the laboratory? Where is your evidence refuting genetic science? What studies can you cite that show that genetics and DNA are no indicator of biological relationships? What research demolishes the various dating methods, the fossils record, the field of comparitive anatomy?

There is none. But you need to do all these things and more to win the day--the burden of proof is on YOU.

Is there a vast conspiracy to silence them, to deny the truths you and your ilk seem to see so easily? Maybe there is a conspiracy. Maybe scientists are all stupid, or misguided or incompetent.

But how about the most likely choice?.. that you are just wrong.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/19/06 06:29

Quote:

What exactly do you mean with 'doesn't fit the slideshow' here? There are all kinds of different animals that wouldn't fit your slideshow then... Take for example the billions of insects, bugs and more specialistic creatures like the cameleon




The point is is that slideshows don't matter. Humans are great at recognizing patterns, so we've figured out a pattern to life. What I'm concerned with is the foundational reasoning behind why people believe these animals transitioned in such a way.

Quote:

The lack of 'missing links', intermediate forms etc. is a non-argument, there are plenty of those available




So what's the intermediate between the prehistoric horse, and whatever animal that came from? I'm not seriously questioning you, I'd just like to know. I didn't think there was one.

Quote:

You imply it's illogic, I think it's perfectly reasonable.




But its not definitive proof. Its just something evolutionists think is a side effect of evolution.

Quote:

I think this is kinda outdated too... We now much more about 14C now, 14C in the atmosphere can contaminate it...




The atmosphere that's below ground?

Quote:

1. New 14C is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add "modern" 14C to coal are:

* Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal.
* Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces.
* Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers.

Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure.




These are just explanations. Nothing has been proved yet. Its pretty slick wording on their part. They give the possibilities and then say, "Minute amounts of contamination from these sources CAN [emphasis added of course] cause..." Sure, they can. But we haven't proved that its the source, and even if they have contaminated the coal, we have to prove that its consistent with what we find in the coal. Be patient.

I'm not saying we won't find out this was contaminated. Frankly, this isn't really that great of an example compared to the other really great examples of discrepencies. Its just something to ponder.

What I find more incriminating is the circular reasoning employed with the geological strata.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/19/06 06:43

Matt, can you argue with anything except your opinion? I've given many, many sound responses to supposed examples of evolution. Which is why people who are smarter than you, JCL and Marco, have been able to converse with me on the subject. You on the other hand have insisted on not responding, because you don't feel you need to (or are unable to), and instead keep trying to intimidate me into believing what you believe. Which is a good sign of a lack of understanding of the discourse.

I'll make things easy on you, Matt. From now on, I will not respond to anything you have to say on the subject of evolution, or the question of how reliable opinions other than your own are. You can ignore me too, since you have nothing of any use to say anyway, and people who are actually interested in the debate can continue on.

You're not going to get me to shut my mouth by making me afraid to believe what I believe. Of course, that might seem like a good idea to you since fighting a war for your beliefs (isn't that what atheists get so mad at christians for?), or forcing people via fascism to believe what you believe is a good idea according to you.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/19/06 08:12

Quote:

Which is why people who are smarter than you, JCL and Marco, have been able to converse with me on the subject.




Maybe you are the smartest of all, since you seem to see clearly what all scientists with training and experience miss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have conversed with you at length about the subject, but the fact is, there is little reason to use scientific arguement when you are incapable of seperating evidence from your own biases.

For instance, I have repeatedly mentioned that there are clear genetic relationships between humans, chimpanzees, and likely all other lifeforms. The genetic seperation is generally in line with the morphological differences, with chimps sharing 96% of our DNA, and being the most morphologically like humans.

This seems conclusive.

I have heard no possible refutations, and certainly you have offered none. Do you deny that these facts are accurate? Or do you suppose that modern genetic science is inherently flawed?

Given these simple genetic facts, it seems that no other arguements for the reality of evolution are needed. The proof is in the genes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But all the other evidence gives more weight to the conclusion. The evidence from the fossil record seems very strong, with many transitional forms having been found since Darwin's day-- from Archeaopteryx to this new fossil, Tiktallik, which I have mentioned in another thread.

These can be certainly be considered "transitional" forms, and your arguments are insufficient to disprove this. Even if they are NOT, this doesn't disprove evolutionary theory. Fossils are certainly not preserved for every species, nor do we need fossils to conclude that evolution happens. Darwin already did it without fossils.

But as we have the fossils, we should use them, and they are conclusive.

To get the meat of the thing, what about hominid fossils such as Homo Erectus? Can you deny that this species is related to modern humans? It seems that such a denial is impossible, given the obvious similarities. What the exact place of H. Erectus is in the human family tree is not certain, but what seems certain is that is HAS a place.

Homo Erectus was so like us that he could walk down the street wearing modern clothes and not draw too much attention. He could use and make tools, he could probably make fire, and may have had some language skills.

How then does Homo Erectus fit into the world if not as a human ancestor? Is he a freak of nature, without precedent or antecedent?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you may see, the fossil record is not really a search for the precious transitional forms, but a search for species with dates. We can reconstruct the evolutionary tree, however approimately, from any specimens with dates. Why do all vertebrates seem to share important characteristic, such as 4 limbs, when most lifeforms like arthropods, etc have more limbs/legs?

Is it not sensible to conclude that the this is because there is a line of descent between the vertebrate species, and that they are related? To deny this is to posit that each species is entirely seperate from all others. Is then a lion completely divorced from a tiger? They share may features, they can even interbreed. Yet according to your philosphy, they must be seperate and the lines unbroken from the beginning of time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about the sequence of the appearance of species in the fossil record? Why do only very simple and primitive forms seem to exist from the earliest ages, to be followed by more and more complex creatures in latter? Did creation happen again and again? Why do we not see God creating new species even now, under our very noses. Bing, out pops an alligiraffe!

The answer is, speciea take long time to develop. But it is ongoing, even now. There are new species forming as we speak, out there in the jungles, in the misted ranges of the Costa Rican cloudforests, in the perenially flooded wetlands of the Amazon Basin, and in your backyard.

This is why I say species always in transition, fomr one form to another. Species are after all populations, not discreet blocks. As Darwin saw, birds can differentiate based on environment and habit and opportunity. They speciated in the Galapogos over a fairly short time, in the scheme of the Ages of the Earth. I see no reason to contradict Darwin, as his conclusions and observations have stood for over 150 years. It will take more than you to knock them down.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/19/06 11:42

Quote:

Primitive snakes — such as, pythons and boa constrictors — do have nub-like legs beneath their skins and tiny, half-inch claws that protrude out above the nubs but nestle close to their bellies near the anus. Actually, even the nubs are not legs but rather a remnant of upper-leg (thigh or femur) bones. The males still use the spurs — but only during courtship and fighting — not to walk. No other snakes have legs.




All snake species have those leg nubs during their embryonal phase. They just disappear then, so snakes normally don't have legs. Only the oldest snakes species - pythons and boas, the closest to their evolutionary ancestors - keep the legs nubs during their whole life.

Seems pretty good evidence of evolution to me.

Another transient fossil that sheds some light on snake evolution:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/19/fossil.snake.ap/index.html?section=cnn_space


- The mutation question ---

Evolution requires mutations and natural selection. You admit that natural selection and small mutations exist, but deny the possibility of large mutations. The reason you give is that selection and small mutations can be directly observed, while large mutations can not be directly observed in our life time.

The first logical flaw is that you assume that something you can't observe doesn't exist. However you can't observe single quarks either and nevertheless all physicists agree that quarks exist.

The second logical flaw is that you seem to assume mutations can only remove information from the DNA, and not add information. However a mutation at first is just a random modification of the DNA. Either by removing or adding DNA parts - copies from the same DNA or from foreign DNA - or by directly modifying DNA sequences. This can add information to the DNA, or remove it. Both is possible. Only the outcome decides whether it's a good mutation or a bad one.

As you can imagine when parts of some code are randomly shuffled or changed, most mutations are bad. But probability dictates that there must also be good mutations, although less frequent. The existence of good mutations is not a matter of opinion, but follows from the laws of logic and mathematics.


- The faith question ---

Actually it's very simple.

A) Religious people can believe in evolution.
B) Religious people can believe in creationism.
C) Non-religious people can believe in evolution.
D) Non-religious people can't believe in creationism.

Conclusion: Creationism requires faith (religion), evolution doesn't.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/19/06 22:41

Ok. I can't respond right away because I have some chores to take care of. But I can see that we're not even on the same page right now. Ignoring Matt's post for the moment, I don't think we're talking about the same thing regarding mutations.

Anyway, I'll be back. Some quick thingers on the appendix like I promised.

As it turns out, it may not be all that important in adults, but it is necessary for human life, especially early on. Specifically, it gives the body early warning of what kinds of bacteria are and aren't allowed in the body, and without it our digestive system would not work nearly as well as it should. In other words, our body would attack bacteria that are actually helpful for us. I'm not completely educated on exactly how useful those bacteria are for us, but wouldn't this make living extremely uncomfortable, and or impossible? I don't have time to research the exact role of these bacteria. But anyway, on short notice this is the best link I could find.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0002A56A-62A5-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7

Now if you want to continue to argue against your own side, you may. But since prediction is so important for a theory, this lends credibility to the Intelligent Designer theory since that theory predicts that all vestigial organs will be learned to have a purpose (is it a coincidence that we keep finding out vestigial organs are extremely useful? possibly, although maybe we keep finding purposes for them because scientists are cranks and they're crazy and they are conspiracy theorists who need to be silenced with war or by big government).

In that case, since evolution predicts that vestigial organs do exist, we can take one notch out of that belt.

I will be back, as I've promised. I'll have a response to those snakes, and anything else that's been mentioned. Although, Matt, since you actually decided to contribute to the debate I may respond. Or not, since it won't do any good.

Until then...

edit:

Oh yeah, that link you provided also gives credibility to the idea that the fossil record is a big jumble of circular reasoning. More on that later.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/20/06 04:44

How come the more I respond, the less Nitro responds, and the less I respond, the more Nitro responds. We need to work together.

Quote:

Maybe you are the smartest of all, since you seem to see clearly what all scientists with training and experience miss.




Like I said. I don't think scientists are idiots. I think they've come to the wrong conclusion based on their own biases. That's a natural human tendancy. In general, that's about the best any evolutionists can accuse me of. Maybe some ignorance.

Quote:

that there are clear genetic relationships between humans, chimpanzees, and likely all other lifeforms.




Which is fine. No one disagrees with you. In fact, we all think it SHOULD be this way whether or not things were created. Like I said, chances are if an animal looks like another, it has some (if not most) DNA in common.

If I'm designing a series of airplane models, I'm going to come up with a basic formula that all airplanes need in order to do what they do, then I might create different models for different purposes. Some wings may be swept back, others may be longer, while some airplane bodies may be smaller or more aerodynamic depending on the purpose. However, when all is said and done, since they are meant to do similar things, they'll probably be 95% similar.

Quote:

This seems conclusive.




Conclusive that we have a lot of morphology in common with chimps or apes or whatever. While this COULD be a side effect of common evolution, it also COULD be a side effect of common design. So it goes either way. In this case it really just comes down to our own personal philosophical differences.

Like I've said many times, if a designer is pondering how to make animals fly, what else would he give them besides wings? If I'm creating all the different kinds of birds on the earth, I'm not going to give some of them beaver tails in place of wings and say, "Go forth and fly."

If they all have wings, wouldn't it seem logical that (evolution or not) they have DNA in common? Once you've gotten the form of a wing down, there's no reason for changing the underlying building blocks of the wing. Unless, in your infinite wisdom, you're really concerned that a few of your creations are going to invent some crazy idea that you didn't create them and that they created themselves through death, and you're really concerned about sticking it to them. Somehow, I don't think a creator would care to change his creation based on some theory that will come and go like a breeze in time.

Quote:

But all the other evidence gives more weight to the conclusion. The evidence from the fossil record seems very strong, with many transitional forms having been found since Darwin's day




There are transitional forms if you consider an animal that is a fully formed, complete animal a transition (to counter this you say all animals are transitions, which is kind of flimsy since all we ever see are animals producing the same animal, with dysgenic mutations in between). The duck billed platypus is a great transition between birds (sex chromosomes), mammals, reptiles (poison barbs and gate), and of course fish or other aquatic life forms (electroception). And yet, all of these features seem pretty untransitional since they all make the creature well adapted to its relatively unchanging environment. Is it possible that your way of classifying animals is flawed? There's no controversy of whether or not the duck billed platypus is the transitionary form of all these different classes.

Quote:

These can be certainly be considered "transitional" forms, and your arguments are insufficient to disprove this.




Your assumptions are insufficient to prove this. In order to prove that they're transitionary, you must prove that your evolutionary timeline is correct. Not that they share something in common.

Quote:

To get the meat of the thing, what about hominid fossils such as Homo Erectus? Can you deny that this species is related to modern humans?




No, I just don't think it was anything other than a human. The average skull capacity of the homo erectus (as extimated on fossil evidence) is still within the range of current human skull capacity. Aboriginals have smaller skulls than most non-aboriginals, maybe they're evolving into us. Even though we can interbreed (if such a term can be used between humans). Furthermore, skull capacity has been shown to have little effect (within small variations in humans) between intelligence, and its not synonymous with brain size.

Quote:

The riddle surrounds the robust physical characteristics of the Kow Swamp people that some experts suggest links them to earlier more ‘archaic’ humans such as Homo erectus found in Indonesia.




http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_1255.html

Quote:

Archaic features were primarily concentrated on the mandibular body and on the cranium forward of the coronal suture. In particular a combination of receding frontal squama, massive supraorbital regions and a supraglabella fossae "preserving an almost unmodified eastern erectus form" (1972:319)




http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/KowS.html

Maybe these traits are a bit more flexible than you're willing to admit? Certainly if humans exhibit traits similar to erectus, and you yourself say that erectus wouldn't look that out of place with us today, then maybe its a human. Certainly its brain case isn't out of our range. Different diets may be able to explain that (I don't have scientific proof to back that up, but ockham's razor shaves off your explanation for me. If there's a chance that they didn't have to go through the long and complicated process of evolution, then why should they have?), but to assume it was evolution just stifles sceintific discovery. We should be researching all avenues of these discoveries (even if that means avenues that aren't very evolutionary), if we're to pursue true scientific ideals.

Of course, that's not what you're interested in, you just want to jump on the fact that this could prove we evolved. So, if we see humans with erectus traits, and we see erectus is within the limits of human traits, then tell me why I should be bothered to believe this is proof of evolution.

Although it is in a watered down fashion, most of these supposedly different traits are seen in humans today. Chances are if it looks like a human, and smells like a human, it is a human.

Quote:

To deny this is to posit that each species is entirely seperate from all others. Is then a lion completely divorced from a tiger?




No its not, since they can interbreed. Meaning they're actually the same species. In this case, this can be easily explained simply by saying that they descended from the same kind. A more generalized cat. Ask anyone who's done breeding experiments. You can get some amazing differences in characteristics by force breeding characteristics apart from each other. The the more you let these different 'species' interbreed the more you go back to the more general form you started with. Zeedonk, is another great example. Or a zorse for that matter. If humanity kept breeding between the races (instead of having a problem with finding mates outside of their own race) then we would return to a more generalized form suggesting that certain attributes may have been force bred by the environment (some believe this happened at babel) to split traits, but not ultimately destroy the ability to return to the original kind.

Humans can vary in characteristics and still be human.

Quote:

Yet according to your philosphy, they must be seperate and the lines unbroken from the beginning of time.




As I said above. Selective breeding (even natural) can force certain characteristics to disperse into different environments, and the original kind is witnessed by interbreeding. Ask any dog breeder if you don't believe me.

So no, these animals were probably not created in their present form. In fact, there were probably far fewer created kinds that split off via selective pressures to cause the animal to become something 'different'. Which would explain the wide variety of species on earth. This is what Darwin witnessed on the galapogos islands, and this is why speciation is essential to creationism. However, we know they aren't really all that different since we can interbreed them.

This still isn't evolution, since we're losing genetic variance.

Quote:

Why do only very simple and primitive forms seem to exist from the earliest ages, to be followed by more and more complex creatures in latter? Did creation happen again and again?




Ok, if the strata is such a reliable indicator of time, then explain to me how they date millions of years old strata? When you get that answer, explain to me how they date millions of years old (rock) fossils. Then we can get to talking about that.

Furthermore, this timeline conflicts with the erectus since we find traits disappearing in the strata (if it can be called a timeline) and then reappearing later in history. Does evolution usually yo-yo like that?

Quote:

Why do we not see God creating new species even now, under our very noses.




I don't believe he's created anything new since the beginning of creation. Speciation has occured to create 'new' animals, but since these are just genetic fractures of their originals, I wouldn't put it in the same category.

JCL, I would first like to address one thing within that website that will give Matt a better idea of the problem I have with the fossil record.

Quote:

It's the first time scientists have found a snake with a sacrum -- a bony feature supporting the pelvis -- he said. That feature was lost as snakes evolved from lizards, and since this is the only known snake that hasn't lost it, it must be the most primitive known, he said.




So in other words they can just slap a date on it that fits their decided timeline, and every time they find that fossil within a given strata, that strata MUST be that age....because they said so. Let's outline the circular reasoning here.

We think that snakes lost their sacrum during evolution. We know this because the earliest snakes are the only ones with the sacrum. They're the earliest known snakes because they still have their sacrums. No scientific thought put into it whatsoever.

I simply don't trust evidence that's supposedly millions of years old. If this is the logic we put behind it, then I don't believe there is any possibility of its accuracy.

Modern snakes that keep these nubs use it to sexually stimulate the female, and grasp during copulation, and also to fight. What about the past 'legs.'



That's the best example I can find. I cannot argue that it doesn't have legs. I don't have the forensic background to determine from internet pictures what the deal is. They're found in sedimentary rock, and in what CNN calls 'terrestial environments' which they don't describe in any detail. Sedimentary usually suggests water. However, since we can't observe this animal in its natural environment, I'm still skeptical. Number one, its hind limbs may have been useful (swimming or faster burrowing). I don't suppose anyone has been able to reproduce what the limb actually looks like based on the tiny splinter that comprises the 'leg.' However, it really doesn't need to be a leg, and even then it doesn't need to be a leg with the same intent as the legs we see on creature nowadays.

I like the quote, "Fossils will sing any tune you want to hear."

It may well be a dysgenic reptile, which is fine and still fits within the creationist model besides.

By the way, backtrailing further and using evolution as my model, let's assume that snakes did have fully formed legs meant for walking. What good does that do to an animal that crawls? Where is the transition from walking to crawling besides legs, because even with legs, snakes would not walk. These snakes with legs are really just a distraction from the fact that there is no true transition between walking lizards and crawling snakes. Unless you consider that they came out of the water, in which case hind limbs could be extremely useful, and assuming they were legs meant for walking is rather illogical.

And did they stand upright? Because I'm having a hard time imagining a snake with only two legs being of any good on land before it 'devolved' into a snake with useless legs. Where are the four legged snakes?

Furthermore, those limbs in that picture of a fossil look better suited, and positioned, to be used as propulsion in water. Which would explain why the majority of these fossils are found in sedimentary rock. I guess I really just don't see the resemblance to legs.

One final note about archaeopteryx, non-transitional birds were also known to have teeth back in the day. This bird (since it obviously is a bird) really bares little resemblance to a reptile. I know, I'm wrong because I disagree with people who want it to be a reptile/bird, but let's remember that these are the same people that ignored the fact that this animal was covered in feathers and paraded around drawings of a reptile with wings. Sounds like your side is the one that has a hard time understanding scientific evidence.

It has a backwards thumb for perching, and it could fly. If it looks like a bird, and smells like a bird (even if it has teeth) it probably is a bird.

Quote:

but deny the possibility of large mutations.




Let me put it this way. Before mutations even have the chance to pile up, they're going to be selected out of the population. If we add a small change to a sequence that controls the wing growth, it could completely 'turn off' wings without completely losing the wing data. Great, now let's say we start to rewrite the eyes. If we need to do this in, for the sake of the example, a sequence of 30 different mutations. It might be safe to assume that by the 15th mutation, the genes will be coded for something so arbitrarily useless for the creature, or harmful that the mutations will never finish their work. You seem to think that if we randomly cause small enough changes to certain sequences, we can write data that makes sense. What does the creature do in the meantime while its living with data that doesn't make sense?

Quote:

The reason you give is that selection and small mutations can be directly observed, while large mutations can not be directly observed in our life time.




That's not what I said. Small mutations, as observed, will never lead to large mutations that are beneficial. If such beneficial mutations do exist (without losing data which is in the wrong direction) then the intermediate steps must not be selected out. Sometimes they aren't. For instance, when sickle cell anemia (a generally debilitating disease) prevents the mutation from being selected out. At least, until it enters an area where there is no malaria. In which case, GASP, its selected out or just sexed out.

Quote:

This can add information to the DNA, or remove it. Both is possible. Only the outcome decides whether it's a good mutation or a bad one.




So as the creature is waiting for the data for wings, its also waiting for the data to grow lighter bones, and the data to switch lungs to ones more useful for flying, and the data to behave differently with these new additions. In the meanwhile, these apparently intermediate mutations are causing disorder that will supposedly end in order. What is the creature doing in the meantime? Waiting millions of years, as a jumbled confused mess, for the mutations to finish their work or at least get to a useful intermediate? Well I don't think that between these useful intermediates, the creature is going to 'take off' genetically.

I'm not describing very well what I mean, but I'm also very tired and sick of typing right now. So I'll have to maybe explain better what I mean at another time.
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Science and Creation - 04/20/06 05:55

you analogy with ariplanes and creationism fails because of one mistake: all airplanes are ment to do the same in the same environment.
To be scientifical correct you would have to compare "all" transport methods ever created (or if you like just the ones that can fly).

as far as i know the construction plans and the main idea between a plane and a baloon is quite different. though both where "created". Not to mention all transports ever created. Starting with wagons, trains, cars, rockets, planes, zeppelins and so much more.

Furthermore i am sure the planes built in 200 years wont have much in common if the ones we know today.

also i am not sure if helicopters can be that easy compared with planes.


they all though share one thing: Every single one was designed by a scientist


another question regarding vestigal organs:
Why should the fetus of a whale make teeth in its mother's womb only to reabsorb them later and live a life sifting krill on a whalebone filter?


Another one about whales and them having a pelvis and leg bones (they are not a few inches, some can grow several feet long btw):
There was an argument that humans can be born with a 6th finger. No reason to doubt this.
Fact though is that the blueprint for a figer is allready in our genetic code. Its "just" one finger more.
Whales growing legs or snakes with legs thus have one bottom line: the genetic code for legs has to be implemented into them.

Evolution explains that very well. Creationism still failed to explain why god should add the blueprint of a leg into a whale.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/20/06 08:26

about the relationship between lions and tigers:

Quote:

...since they can interbreed. Meaning they're actually the same species. In this case, this can be easily explained simply by saying that they descended from the same kind. A more generalized cat. Ask anyone who's done breeding experiments.




You propose that Lions and tigers are the same species? I hardly think so. Every lion I've talked with says he is definitely not the same species as a tiger!

In fact what you've done is tacitly accepted evolution, because breeding experiments are in fact a version of forced evolution, with natural selection being replaced by human selection. Dogs for instance may still be one species, but if given many centuraies of continued breding, there is no doubt that they would speciate.

Homo Erectus is clearly not the same species as Homo Sapiens, there are too many morphological differences.

While brains size in modern humans is not necessarily indicative of intelligience in any specific case (microcephaly being the pathological exception), there is a great deal of evidence showing that as homonins evolved into modern humans, brain size increased in a clear curve upward.

Even supposeing Homo Erectus was a subspecies of homo sapiens ( no scientist i know takes this positions though), there are other cases that cant possibly be Homo Sapiens: what about Homo Habilis? Or H. Ergaster, H.Heidelbergensis? Not to mention the many pre-homo species, such as the austrolopithicines. There may not yet be a clear agreement on the exact lines of human descent, but that it occurred is universally accepted in science.

ITo hold a position denying the evidence of human evolution requires an untenable line of reasoning:

1) All hominins must either be H. Sapiens, or entirely unrelated species.
2) Because we can't accept evolutionary gradation, there is must then be a bright line dividing Humans from non-Humans.
3) This line must be based solely on morphology and cultural evidence because we have no genetic data form the ealier specimens, and even if we did, we deny all genetic evidence anyway.
4) Morphology unfortunately clearly indicates gradation, with no clear line between any one specimen.
5) So we must rely on cultural data, such as tool making, burial practices, art, etc.

The earliest stone tools are several million years old, so must assume that modern humans existed that far back(and science again disagrees emphatically), since no non-human should be able to make tools according to our line of reasoning.

Unfortunately, we are back where we started, because tool-making is clearly not a good indicator of biological evolution.

Therefore, there is no way to divide the humans from non-humans in any clear way. Thus we left with making suppositions about brain size and so on. But since brain size increased on an upward curve, we can find no means to conclude that humans are different fomr ealier human-like forms in any major way, rather only by degree.

This seperation by degree is what we find repeatedly, in morphology, genetics and culture. All this points to a gradual change--evolution.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/20/06 12:15

Quote:

How come the more I respond, the less Nitro responds, and the less I respond, the more Nitro responds. We need to work together.


Im too busy, plus Im not interested in the personal attacks. But I am certainly reading it as well as I am reading some other books on the subject. So at least you know that someone is listening. That way when you construct a nice long explanation and they only answer with one sentence you know you didn't write it for no reason at all
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/20/06 17:28

Quote:

So as the creature is waiting for the data for wings, its also waiting for the data to grow lighter bones, and the data to switch lungs to ones more useful for flying, and the data to behave differently with these new additions. In the meanwhile, these apparently intermediate mutations are causing disorder that will supposedly end in order. What is the creature doing in the meantime? Waiting millions of years, as a jumbled confused mess, for the mutations to finish their work or at least get to a useful intermediate? Well I don't think that between these useful intermediates, the creature is going to 'take off' genetically.

I'm not describing very well what I mean, but I'm also very tired and sick of typing right now. So I'll have to maybe explain better what I mean at another time.




I think I know what you mean. But you've misunderstood evolution: that's not the way mutations work. They only stay if they offer an advantage.

In the case of wings, certainly an animal didn't suddenly get wings and flew. It's vice versa. First a species aquired the habit to use aerodynamics for moving from trees to the ground - there are enough species, even apes, who do that even today. The better they could move through the air, the better they could catch prey or flee from predators. Then they got lighter bones and a body better suited for aerodynamics. Wings were probably the last addendum.

To illustrate this let's take the example of an eye (an organ creationists often claim "must be designed"). Of course there won't be a sudden "eye mutation". Nor will a species first get a quarter-eye, then a half-eye, and then a full-eye. The eye evolved in several steps. Every step requires only a relatively small mutation. Every such mutation offers an advantage over the previous state, or at least not a significant disadvantage. Otherwise the mutation would be selected away.

Step 1: One skin cell aquires light sensitivity. The animal can now move out of the sun, avoid the shadow of a predator or similar.

Step 2: More skin cells aquire light sensitivity. The animal can detect in which direction a shadow moves.

Step 3: The cells sink slightly into the skin, in a pit. This way the direction to a shadow is even easier determined, and the sensitive cells are better protected.

Step 4: The cells are now at the inner wall of an indentation, forming a primitive lens-less camera.

Step 5: A transparent membrane covers the dent, for protecting the cells.

Step 6: The membrane aquires a certain shape, forming a lens.

And so on. Probably the eye evolved in more or other intermediate steps, but I think you get the idea.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/20/06 22:10

I've had a realization. While I'm extremely tempted to keep going, I'm going to have to find some restraint. This just isn't going to end anytime soon. Its not that I'm not having fun, and I'd love to keep going. Its just, I don't really have the energy for it anymore. The whole three on one thing makes it rather difficult. I think if I could bring a couple serious, knowledgable creationists or IDers or whatever into the fold then things would be easier. But...I don't know. I may end up being dragged back into the debate, especially after I reread the responses. But for now I need to take a break.

edit: I'd just like to point out one thing. My analogy is simpler than real life for one reason. If I were going to use an analogy, it would be pointless to use an analogy as complex as the topic of debate. Otherwise I might as well not use the analogy in the first place.

Although the logic of your response doesn't seem to be very sound. Evolutionists say that different creatures fly with 'different' mechanisms because they evolved at different times. In other words, all wings didn't evolve from the same source. So your analogy about other flying machines could just be used to point out how different animals can do similar things with different structures. Planes are birds, helicopters are insects, so on and so forth. In which case my analogy could still stand. Besides, the point of my analogy wasn't to say that its not possible that those similarities aren't the result of evolution, but just to say that they aren't conclusive proof of evolution. They could have just as well been designed that way. But whatever. Maybe I'll be back.

I think maybe I just need to pace myself, so I don't get burned out.
Posted By: zazang

Re: Science and Creation - 04/21/06 06:57

When it comes to wings,I feel that we humans perceive "flying" as a difficult
act because we as humans can swim and walk but cant fly...however water and air(the medium of motion) are both
"fluids" and they are both inter-convertible(condenstaion and evaporation)...so if you can understand this "oneness" of water and air,then how difficult is it to imagine that some creatures from water moved into air ?...A fish with fins moves against gravity in water,then why cant it evolve into a bird with wings and move against gravity in air ?

At the bottom of it all,I feel that Creationists feel that the present state and structure of living creatures is very complex and it cannot have been evolved...but think of a modern PC...slowly built from the first PC by Babel(?)
into the PC ur typing away right now...now I know that a PC was "created" but I'm only talking about the idea of "change" of the PC over years to the current state

Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/21/06 11:32

The existence of different methods of moving through the air is indeed neither a proof of evolution nor of creationism. However, creation/design and evolution would have other different observable effects on species and their features:


Quote:










































Creation / Design Evolution
Species: Separately designed and released on earth by a god or by extraterrestrials. Evolved by inheritance of genetic changes.
Order of appearance: No fixed order for simple and complex species. Simple species precede complex species.
Shared DNA sequences: Only for shared features. In all species, even if they don't share features.
Feature limitations: Features must be consistent with physics. Features must be possible by genetic changes.
Vestigial features: No. Yes if they have no reproduction disadvantage.
Development of features: Optimal initial design. Optimal adaption.
Diseases, aging: No known purpose. Limits lifespan and accelerates evolution.






Most of those differences are observable.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/21/06 21:58

Quote:

now I know that a PC was "created" but I'm only talking about the idea of "change" of the PC over years to the current state




Yeah. Bad example.

Quote:

When it comes to wings,I feel that we humans perceive "flying" as a difficult
act because we as humans can swim and walk but cant fly...however water and air(the medium of motion) are both
"fluids" and they are both inter-convertible(condenstaion and evaporation)...so if you can understand this "oneness" of water and air,then how difficult is it to imagine that some creatures from water moved into air ?...A fish with fins moves against gravity in water,then why cant it evolve into a bird with wings and move against gravity in air ?




I'm sure flying is pretty easy for birds. I'm also sure its pretty hard for a fish to accidentally become a bird.
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/21/06 22:17

Quote:

A fish with fins moves against gravity in water,then why cant it evolve into a bird with wings and move against gravity in air ?


Because underwater it only has to deal with a fraction of gravity under water. Buoyancy takes most of it away, making swimming almost weightless. A land creature has more experience with gravity than a fish.

Quote:

but think of a modern PC...slowly built from the first PC by Babel(?)
into the PC ur typing away right now...now I know that a PC was "created" but I'm only talking about the idea of "change" of the PC over years to the current state



You're probably referring to Babbage (who didn't build it). Either way that's as bad an analogy as creationists speaking about evolution from rock to human.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/21/06 22:23

Creationists don't believe that aging and disease necessarily went hand in hand with creation. I feel kind of like a broken record saying this, but christians believe that (according to the bible) death, disease, and all of that fun stuff weren't a part of life until (within the very first generation's span) humans sinned and caused all of this stuff to happen to themselves.

Actually, we believe that death and disease and all of that are unnatural intrusions (that have just become part of every day life). But, that's kind of hard to prove isn't it?

With science it isn't all that hard to imagine a world without death. They're researching ways that might make it possible for our bodies to theoretically live forever (by blocking the 'aging' process). Of course, that doesn't rule out murder, and disease. But the fact of the matter is that it is scientifically possible to imagine a world closer to what is described in Genesis.

Oh yeah, I made a mistake in saying that God never created anything after the original creation. After humans sinned, the bible does say that he created 'weeds'...Unfortunately I don't have access to the original hebrew writing so I'm not sure what word is used in place of weeds and thusly its exact meaning. But whatever.

I have one question that I'd like to know an evolutionist's opinion on. Ok, the most primitive form of life is a single cell. Multi-cellular creatures have cells the specialize in different ways and as a whole act as one large creature. So basically we're made out of billions of lifeforms. Why do we have a cingular consciousness? I know, the brain. But my question is, why does one know they exist? How come when I look at my computer screen I'm consciously aware of the image I'm seeing, why does this image exist at all (even if it is just in my head, per se)? Its one thing for a human to be able to do what a human does, but to be conscious while doing it? In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even with the same brain, humans wouldn't behave exactly the same way without a consciousness. But who knows.
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/21/06 23:37

Quote:

Creationists don't believe that aging and disease necessarily went hand in hand with creation.


I know you don't like to talk about creationism, but if aging, diseases, etc. was not originally encoded in the DNA, then how did these massive mutations (that kept everything else about humans intact, nonetheless) come about within a single generation ? I think the only answer would be some sort of "recall action" by god. Thus in the end it comes out the same way, whether god created humans faulty or made them faulty later on.

Quote:

I have one question that I'd like to know an evolutionist's opinion on. (..)Why do we have a cingular consciousness?


Trust me, you don't want to go there. Whereas evolution is straight-forward and for the most part understood, consciousness is a whole other thing with lots of competing theories none of which satisfying.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/22/06 03:02

I sure hope we dont have a Cingular consciouness.. i use Verizon.
Posted By: zazang

Re: Science and Creation - 04/22/06 03:32

who knows...in the future,humans will be able to isolate consciousness from the body and still the person will behave similar to the one with consciousness
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/22/06 09:23

Quote:

I have one question that I'd like to know an evolutionist's opinion on. Ok, the most primitive form of life is a single cell. Multi-cellular creatures have cells the specialize in different ways and as a whole act as one large creature. So basically we're made out of billions of lifeforms. Why do we have a cingular consciousness? I know, the brain. But my question is, why does one know they exist? How come when I look at my computer screen I'm consciously aware of the image I'm seeing, why does this image exist at all (even if it is just in my head, per se)? Its one thing for a human to be able to do what a human does, but to be conscious while doing it? In fact, I'd go as far as to say that even with the same brain, humans wouldn't behave exactly the same way without a consciousness. But who knows.






This question goes far beyond evolution and I think it's one of the 10 greatest questions of mankind today.

The behaviorist point of view: Consciousness is an illusion. Our brain produces a model of the outside world, and produces an image of ourselves within this model. This model is required to survive in the jungle, and gives us the illusion of a consciousness.

The materialist point of view: Consciousness (or "the soul") exists. It is a new quality that automatically comes into existence in a complex enough brain able to reflect on itself.

There are other opinions about consciousness, but no particular "evolutionist" opinion as to my knowledge. At the moment all points of view about consciousness are not falsifiable, i.e. they are not scientific. This might change when we have computers complex enough to pass the Turing Test. Then we'll be able to experiment with consciousness and maybe come close to an answer.

Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Science and Creation - 04/23/06 02:33

Language and the mind presents other theories of conciuousness. For example, does being able to express thoughts through language gives rise to self awareness?

The current Turing test is a test of how well you can trick people into thinking the computer is intelligent. The leading algorithm, A.L.I.C.E, works on the principle that although you can make an infinite number of utterances with a language, in fact people mostly just say the same things over and over. Through stimulus and response, A.L.I.C.E has over 60,000 replies. So long as you don't repeat the same question several times or ask silly questions like "do zebras wear socks?" you will usually get a natural sounding answer out of her. The current Turing test has disallowed using such tricks. In other words, we are not even on the right track to creating an artificial consciousness.

Have a talk with ALICE: http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/23/06 03:37

I didn't bring up consciousness in the context of a debate on evolution. I just wanted to know your guys' opinions on the topic.

Quote:

I know you don't like to talk about creationism, but if aging, diseases, etc. was not originally encoded in the DNA, then how did these massive mutations (that kept everything else about humans intact, nonetheless) come about within a single generation ? I think the only answer would be some sort of "recall action" by god. Thus in the end it comes out the same way, whether god created humans faulty or made them faulty later on.




You mean, it would still be God's fault, or am I not getting what you're saying? God said, "If you eat that fruit, you can be sure you will die." It doesn't get much more clear than that. Adam ate the fruit, so he brought it on himself. Doesn't mean that God is heartless, it was 'our' choice.

Quote:

I sure hope we dont have a Cingular consciouness.. i use Verizon.




Oops.

Quote:

Our brain produces a model of the outside world, and produces an image of ourselves within this model. This model is required to survive in the jungle, and gives us the illusion of a consciousness.




Sounds like a copout to me. I mean, imagine molecules (what we are) being able to consciously comprehend and understand the world. Sounds rather curious to me.

What is the illusion being provided to? This sounds more like a way to just explain consciousness away as an 'illusion' which I don't think it is.

Quote:

The materialist point of view: Consciousness (or "the soul") exists. It is a new quality that automatically comes into existence in a complex enough brain able to reflect on itself.




A much more reasonable explanation. Not really one that quite fits my way of looking at consciousness. I don't know. There's so many ways to go with this, its hard to really even comprehend what consciousness is. I mean, how do I describe my consciousness? I think that, say, a fish can see its predator, but I don't think it 'sees' it the same way we do. Certain visual stimulations can cause the fish to behave differently.

Another interesting question is, since I don't remember anything from early life, was I even conscious within the first few years?

I'd also like to be able to turn off whatever part of my brain tells me to recognize people as people (maybe that's just a consequence of experience) and see what people look like then. That would be interesting.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/23/06 07:45

Quote:

God said, "If you eat that fruit, you can be sure you will die." It doesn't get much more clear than that. Adam ate the fruit, so he brought it on himself. Doesn't mean that God is heartless, it was 'our' choice.




This is hardly a convincing argument. At first, we want to keep this discussion on a scientific level, which excludes using bible quotes as arguments.

Second, we have besides our intellect also a basic concept of justice and fairness. According to this concept it is reprehensible to let someone else suffer for what some Adam did (of course you could say that God does not care about human concepts like justice and fairness - but this would mean that we are morally superior and not made in his image).

Third, this argument applies to humans and does not explain the ageing of almost all multi-cell species with the only exception of some very old marine species (echinoderms). If God wanted to see animals suffer also for Adam's sin, for what reason was sea cucumber spared?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/23/06 18:57

Quote:

This is hardly a convincing argument. At first, we want to keep this discussion on a scientific level, which excludes using bible quotes as arguments.




In that case, the question itself is unscientific and you shouldn't even bother asking it. You should just assume that that's the way things are now, and not consider it a reflection of our creator.

How do I scientifically prove that the earth at one point was perfect? All I have is an inspired account of the way things used to be. You don't happen to believe it like I do, but then again is there anything you believe in that is based on a really old 'record' that you have to interpret through your (or others') modern bias and beliefs?

Quote:

According to this concept it is reprehensible to let someone else suffer for what some Adam did




If God was suspending natural death, or had kept away the natural 'programming' for death, and then took away that protection like he said he would, then it still goes back to Adam. Essentially, the creation was cursed. That means that since Adam was now allowed to die (before he had any children) then his children would inherit the ability to grow old and die. Then, since we now have the ability to understand the difference between right and wrong, things like murder come into the fold, stuff like that.

Quote:

(of course you could say that God does not care about human concepts like justice and fairness - but this would mean that we are morally superior and not made in his image).




If Adam and Eve chose death for themselves and their descendants, this is a reflection of the consequences of our morally wrong choices (sin). I can't argue against what you're saying, because you're pointing out an inconsistancy with something that isn't even being said.

Quote:

If God wanted to see animals suffer also for Adam's sin, for what reason was sea cucumber spared?




Its not, it can be killed just like any other animal. That it can't age really doesn't matter. It isn't spared from death, just like the rest of creation after we brought down the curse by disobeying God. The way death comes about isn't important, its the fact that all creatures can die. Problem solved?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/23/06 19:34

Quote:

You propose that Lions and tigers are the same species? I hardly think so. Every lion I've talked with says he is definitely not the same species as a tiger!




Of course, the depends on which of the 5 or so definitions of species you use, but since they can mate and produce fertile (which isn't necessary, but it helps this case) very fit offspring, that makes them the same species. There's no two ways around that. In nature, they wouldn't mate because they're 'enemies' and would be more likely to kill one another, but it happened in a zoo. You can try all you want to confuse the facts on this one, but its a waste of time.

Quote:

In fact what you've done is tacitly accepted evolution, because breeding experiments are in fact a version of forced evolution, with natural selection being replaced by human selection.




Again, the confusion that no matter what the change is, its an evolution-scale change. That's not true. If you want to convince me that germs became man, you have to do more that just show any kind of change at all. You have to show me how these germs could have accidentally written a gigantic library's worth of genetic information.

If we combine the genes for tigers and lions, we get a liger. However, that isn't evolution. Nothing new is being written, we've just combined already written DNA.

Its no wonder you find it easy to believe evolution, you don't even know what it is.

Quote:

Dogs for instance may still be one species, but if given many centuraies of continued breding, there is no doubt that they would speciate.




Even more confusion that speciation is evolution in action. Breeding barriers can pop up that allow animals, that are the same animal just less genetically variant, to stop being able to interbreed. They did it with flies, but what they didn't do while speciating those flies is create anything more complex than the original fly. Sometimes, if you breed certain characteristics like behavior or visual patterns you'll create a different species. Ok, but now either branch of the original species is just less variant than the original species they were branched from. You didn't have a fly grow gills when it speciated. Animals can change, even speciate, this is just a natural consequence. I'm not seeing how this explains germs-to-humans.

Quote:

Homo Erectus is clearly not the same species as Homo Sapiens, there are too many morphological differences.




The same differences that we saw in past humans, and even some in modern humans? Humans that in fact are still humans and not non-humans like Homo erectus supposedly is?

Quote:

there is a great deal of evidence showing that as homonins evolved into modern humans, brain size increased in a clear curve upward.




They found a bunch of different ape skulls (some extinct, others of still living animals) and slapped dates on them based on their assumed age to line them up in a fashion that would prove evolution. This makes sense to an evolutionist because evolution is true, but if you can only find proof of evolution by assuming its true in the first place then I really am far from impressed.

Quote:

there are other cases that cant possibly be Homo Sapiens: what about Homo Habilis? Or H. Ergaster, H.Heidelbergensis?




I don't know, I'd have to research them further, which I'm not going to do anytime within the next few days. Right now, I'm studying up on genetics, which is more important than assuming that ape skulls are the precursor to humans.

Quote:

All hominins must either be H. Sapiens, or entirely unrelated species.




This is only 'untenable' from the perspective that evolution must be true.

Quote:

The earliest stone tools are several million years old




Sounds kind of strange to me, since the earth isn't millions of years old.

Quote:

The eye evolved in several steps.




I can believe that if you tell me how its possible. This is going to get us right back into the mutations debate, so I think we should stay there until we can conclude that one, but right now I'm doing a lot of research into genetics so that we can actually have a real discussion. So just give me a bit of time.

By the way, the more I find out the exact details for the condition and nature of life, and of genetics, the harder it is to believe that everything wasn't designed. Its absolutely amazing. And the idea of a lack of a creator is unimaginable.

However, I also need time to accurately state why I don't believe mutations write things like eyes, even if we give them 400,000+ years. Which is part of my research, and part of just taking my time in translating the idea in my head into words. So...more later on mutations. Which is probably the most important aspect of this debate.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/24/06 08:40

Quote:

In that case, the question itself is unscientific and you shouldn't even bother asking it. You should just assume that that's the way things are now, and not consider it a reflection of our creator.




Remember: the "aging problem" arised from the basic question whether species were designed or evolved and what that means for the life span.

If species are evolved, you would expect a built-in decay - aging - because it limits the lifespan and accelerates evolution.

If species were designed, you would not expect a built-in decay, unless there were a particular reason for it.

This is a typical scientific question: comparing the observations - in this case, a design flaw - with the underlying theory. If the theory can not sufficiently explain the observations, then something is wrong with it.

You tried to explain aging with a moral argument: The very first human displeased his creator and thus became intentionally redesigned with a flaw, as a sort of punishment. As all humans are descendend from the first one, they also inherit the design flaw.

As I pointed out, this explanation is obviously wrong because that design flaw is shared by most species and precedes the first human by more than a billion years. So it can't possibly be caused by God's displeasure in humans. So you have still to come up with a non-moral explanation for aging if you want to save creationism as a serious theory (apart from all the other problems with it).
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/24/06 13:55

Quote:

As I pointed out, this explanation is obviously wrong because that design flaw is shared by most species and precedes the first human by more than a billion years. So it can't possibly be caused by God's displeasure in humans. So you have still to come up with a non-moral explanation for aging if you want to save creationism as a serious theory (apart from all the other problems with it).


Its an interesting question. Do you have any references that would outline aging in pre-adamic(4000 bc) species?

I also question your statement about predating humans for a billion years, the cambrian strata alone is barely 1/2 billion years old. Many of the species which hypothetically existed over a billion years ago would be barely eukaryotes.So I think it would be very difficult to find evidence of aging in the fossil record of these little creatures which existed a billion years ago.

The alleged timeline of evolution from procaryote to eukaryote was from around 4000 mya(4 billion) to 1500 mya(1.5 billion).

Regardless, the explanation is that there were multiple(2 or more) dispensations of creation. I.E. pre-adamic species. The bible does not rule out the possibility of previous civilizations, it only makes it clear that within THIS dispensation, man is the only creation created in His image. It also doesnt rule out other civilizations on other planets or universes. The Holy Book, the bible, was written to a specific audience, mankind.

edit:deleted last part of this post for the larger, better thought process in the next post
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/24/06 14:15

If you look at the question a little deeper however you understand that aging was not directly caused by God's "displeasure with humans" anyway. Aging itself was directly caused by Adam and Eve getting kicked out of the garden of eden and therefore being forever seperated from the Tree of Life. The inability to eat from the tree of life daily was what caused their bodies to die. The curse outlined in Genesis 3:13-19 didnt say anything about ageing.

It is true that "death" was the result of the curse, but it wasnt a physical death, but rather a spiritual death which had nothing to do with the bodies of Adam and Eve.

So therefore, the explanation of species ageing before mankind even existed was not due to a mistake mankind made, but rather due to the fact that the creatures didnt have access to the tree of life.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/24/06 14:54

It is probably true that we don't have fossil evidence of aging from over a billion years ago. Aging probably was 'invented' together with sexual reproduction at about 1200 MYA, but to be on the safe side let's assume that aging certainly existed several hundred million years before mankind.

However, science knows mechanisms of aging - one of them is a cell reproduction limit timed by the length of telomers. Thus aging is a genetic effect and unrelated to access to a "tree of life". And even if we assume that such a tree exists and eating from it can prevent aging, this still does not answer the question why creatures were created with built-in decay in the first place, long before mankind.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/24/06 15:40

Quote:

this still does not answer the question why creatures were created with built-in decay in the first place, long before mankind.



No it doesn't, you are correct as far as I can see right now.

Quote:

However, science knows mechanisms of aging - one of them is a cell reproduction limit timed by the length of telomers.


OK. Do you know of any fossil evidence which shows pre-adamic(pre-4000 bc)creatures aging? It doesnt sound like the length of telomers is something that would readily fossilize.

In other words, where did you get the idea that there is evidence of aging in fossil records before 4000 bc? (Of course embryo to adult wouldnt be the type of aging required)
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/24/06 18:02

Quote:

OK. Do you know of any fossil evidence which shows pre-adamic(pre-4000 bc)creatures aging? It doesnt sound like the length of telomers is something that would readily fossilize.

In other words, where did you get the idea that there is evidence of aging in fossil records before 4000 bc? (Of course embryo to adult wouldnt be the type of aging required)




You are almost implying we would need a timemachine to see such things, but nevertheless I don't really see your point with the last part of your post. Fossils are evidence of death aren't they? Growth is the result of processing food and aging. Aren't bones indicators of aging too then? Why wouldn't be the aging from embryo to adult required as a type of aging? There are some species that are seemingly immortal, but off course can be killed. There are also species that live way longer than us humans, but off course we all know the annoying one-day-flies . In short I don't think aging is really thát relevant for evolution, only the fact that shorter lives will speed up evolution, but they all die at one point. It would only be an argument if you could find a species that's really 100% immortal and can't be killed either. Otherwise it doesn't proof anything.
Yes, not everything get's fossilized, I don't like it either but often there are indirect indicators. Aging involves the cell reproduction limit, well even bones need cells to reproduce to be able to grow as far as I know, so if this limit is different, or not there at all, we would undoubtably see it. Did we ever find things that grow till infinity?

Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/24/06 20:05

Quote:

You are almost implying we would need a timemachine to see such things, but nevertheless I don't really see your point with the last part of your post.


There really is no specific point, I actually was curious as to what evidence could be found to show the decay which accompanies aging.

Quote:

Fossils are evidence of death aren't they?


Right, but not necessarily death by aging.Could be death by cataclysmic events like a worldwide flood, death by falling, death by extinction, tarpits, etc. etc.

Quote:

Why wouldn't be the aging from embryo to adult required as a type of aging?


Well because I believe that jcl was pointing out a design flaw if things were created. In a sense, an aging, decaying body would be viewed as a design flaw. However, the normal growth from egg to adulthood would not represent a flaw.



Quote:

Yes, not everything get's fossilized, I don't like it either but often there are indirect indicators. Aging involves the cell reproduction limit, well even bones need cells to reproduce to be able to grow as far as I know, so if this limit is different, or not there at all, we would undoubtably see it.


To be honest, I havent really checked into it that closely. I thought that perhaps if jcl pointed out this interesting question, perhaps he would have some type of reason behind it(like some type of link)or other research. For now, however, I dont have anything to base a case on.

For example, if the bodies of dinosaurs were found to have become weak and geriatric from some observable method which could be found in the fossil records, it would go a long way toward formulating the question of why God would instill this flaw in them considering that mankind is considered the reason for the decay of aging instilled in creatures and man didnt come on the scene untill after the dinosaurs.

IM not saying that no such evidence exists, there very well may a lot of it. I just thought that it would be logical to assume that since jcl brought up the point, then he would be very well aware of all the evidence which points to it, and in that case, I would be curious to find out.

But I dont care if its jcl answering or anyone else, thats not the point.

Quote:

Did we ever find things that grow till infinity?


So I guess what you mean is that if cellular reproduction limit has been met, then cells would no longer replicate? Arent cells in a constant state of replication?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/24/06 21:11

This argument is out of my range. Mostly because if I want to enter it then I'll start debating how old the earth actually is. And I don't think you guys want to go there.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 01:06

For anyone interested in knowing more about the origin of life, and the problems associated with it (from the perspective of evolution), then I have a link. Its actually based on a website that is offering $1 million to whoever can show how life can spontaneously form.

The link is from an ID website, but all they do is dissect the evolutionist webpage and put it into more layman-like terms. Its a good read, and shows how futile it is to take a creator out of the picture. Of course, once the creator is out of the picture, we have to wonder why it makes so much sense that life can design itself after its inception, so I don't expect you to take it seriously. But for those of us who's critical thinking skills haven't been corrupted by evolutionary indoctrination, its a good read.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i12f.htm

I think its funny that evolutionists (namely the corporation or whatever offering this money) don't want these questions exposed to the public. And until now (when harvard recently offered $1 million for the same purpose) no one but scientists were supposed to hear about questions like these? These otherwise skeptical questions of evolution are only to be asked within the scientific community where they are expected to be answered. Why not let the public know about the huge gaps that materialism (philosophy aside, you have to admit that scientists are working from the assumption that there can be no divine intervention in life) has? I don't get it...

I'm sure I'm the only one who's sickened by the fact that, despite all evidence pointing contrary to the idea of life spontaneously forming, its still taught as fact in schools. If christians supposedly invented indoctrination, we're certainly not the ones perpetuating it now.

Miller failed decades ago, and where he's failed, years of the promise of a million dollar prize has still refused to expose the possibility.

I think its safe to say this cuts to the heart of evolution, no? If there is some sort of divine intervention in the origin of life, then you have no excuse for dismissing it in the creation of the variety of life we see today.

So you have still to come up with a naturalistic explanation for life's origin if you want to save evolution as a serious theory (apart from all the other problems with it).

Anyway, back to studying genetics. Right now I'm on different kinds of mutations. Interesting stuff, it is.

My favorite part is how all the examples that they use of mutations are some kind of horrible disease or defect. Evolution cracks me up. Don't get me wrong, these diseases are horrible, but since one out of 100s of mutation-caused diseases lead to resistance to malaria, that means all of these diseases are evolution in action. That's classic.

Is it okay, by the way, if I start a new thread for mutations? Or would that be overkill. Its just, my post explaining why mutations cannot be the back bone of evolution is going to extremely lengthy, and I don't want it to cloud the general discussion of evolution vs science.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 02:00

As to the question whether species aged at all before 4000 BC: I don't think that we've ever found an arthritic dinosaur fossil (if I'd ask a paleontologist he'd probably had a good laugh). In nature, aging leads to the animal becoming weaker and more likely to be killed. I don't think that many animals die of old-age diseases in nature.

Could dinosaurs have been immortal?

I think not even creationists go so far to claim this. Bone growth rings indicate that the most long-lived dinosaurs had a life span of 100 years. If there were immortal dinosaurs, we had likely found fossils with 1000 or even more growth rings on bones. Anyway there are a lot of very old species still living - for instance, sharks go back 400 MYA - and we know definitely that they age.

So, aging is still not explained by creationism.

As to offered prizes like a million dollars for creating life in a lab: Well, maybe someone claims this prize some day, who knows? I, jcl, herewith solemnly promise to pay a prize of one A6, A7, and A99 Pro Edition to anyone who can prove that a species was placed on earth by a God. Just contact me with the proof to claim the prize...


Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 02:18

Enough about this old age crap. If we're not allowed to bring our presupposition that the bible is true into the discussion, then you're not allowed to bring the presupposition that any animal is millions of years old.

The idea that any animal is that old, even if its just the fossilized remnants, is based on faith.

1). Dating methods contradict each other.
2). Even one method can give different dates.
3). We have no way of knowing if decay rates have been constant throughout history since no one has been alive that long.
4). Much of dating is done circularly (ie we know that these bones are millions of years old, so that strata is millions of years old, and so any bones found in it are millions of years old).

Unless you can refute all of these facts (and more), I'd like to stick to present day facts which are far more scientific. Unless you'd like me to also bring my own myth (embodied in the bible) into the debate? Saying that the lineage of early man is a good way to tell the age of animals or of the earth is about as scientific as saying unreliable, inconsistent dating methods which we ASSUME are true based on decay rate constants which we have no way of knowing their stability show the age of animals or the earth.

You can't stack the debate in your favor by bringing your own bible into the mix.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 02:30

I know that animals aren't million years old. The world was created 100 years ago by the Flying Spaghetti Monster that just let it look as if it were much older, and thus fooled all scientists.

Seriously - if you now begin to claim that all physicists, geologists, archeologists, palaeontologists are totally wrong in the age of earth and only you're right, you're really leaving the scope of a serious discussion. At least it's then up to you to let us know some arguments for those wild claims. How old do you think is the earth?
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 03:22

Quote:

Enough about this old age crap. If we're not allowed to bring our presupposition that the bible is true into the discussion, then you're not allowed to bring the presupposition that any animal is millions of years old.




That animals have lived millions of years ago is not a "presupposition." We know to a very high degree of certainty, fact even, that this is the case. There is a mountain of physical evidence and scientific data to support this theory.

Quote:

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds -- have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah's flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow 'drowned' by the flood.
The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.



More info

In contrast, the presuppostion of the validity of very old stories, written in the stone age by stone age men with fantastic stories about supernatural entities and events that we normally wouldn't give anyone credit for under any circumstances, is neither scientific nor very intelligent.

Although it may be important to you to believe that The Bible and everything in it is a factual account of reality from God, to everyone else it is as factual and scientific as a tomb of fairy stories.

Science describes the way things are, not the way they should be. In other words, things are the way they are whether you choose to believe in them or be an ingnorant little religious git.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 04:12

@Irish: Excluding bible arguments, but admitting scientific arguments was just for getting a scientific discussion. Many creationists still think that there are scientific arguments in favor of creationism and bible belief is unrequired.

However, if you say that creationism requires believing in a literal "bible truth" and denying basic physics laws, like radioactive decay, it's fine with me. But you could have told us so long ago. I had agreed and the discussion were over.
Posted By: William

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 04:59

Quote:

The world was created 100 years ago by the Flying Spaghetti Monster that just let it look as if it were much older, and thus fooled all scientists.




I knew a flying spaghetti monster once.... until I ate him.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 08:52

Quote:


Quote:


Did we ever find things that grow till infinity?




So I guess what you mean is that if cellular reproduction limit has been met, then cells would no longer replicate? Arent cells in a constant state of replication?




No, I didn't really mean that, it's more that the lack of such a limit, would mean cells could grow till infinity. Normally cells grow till there reproduction limit is met and afterwards they just die off. Cells are not in constant state of growth, although I see where you are comming from. When a cell is in a constant state of replication, then as far as I know you would have cancer. Off course there is a small difference between growth and replacement (new reproduction of cells and older cells that die), but I'm sure that aging without a limit would cause very large and extraordinary bone or tissue growth, of which in theory we could find the first in the fossil record. I'm not aware of anything that has been found with such a anomaly. Yet, nature is not perfect in it's process of reproduction yet, just think of the Syndrom of Down and the whole list with similar things, which also influence growth. In other words, even if we did find bones with an anomaly, then it still could be something like that. Furthermore, if there would be no limit, then we would find as much examples as we find fossils from those times, so I'd say it's pretty much logical to assume there was a similar cell reproduction limit, although maybe different.
Also a little theoretical thing, if an animal would have no cell reproduction limit, could it be so lucky to be still alive at this time? Remember that seacreatures possibly could simply survive floods, if there were any...

Cheers
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 20:27

"I knew a flying spaghetti monster once.... until I ate him"

"God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs, God creates William, William destroys God, William creates dinosaurs." -jurassic park

how was the diety, did it have meat-a-balls?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 21:23

Quote:

Seriously - if you now begin to claim that all physicists, geologists, archeologists, palaeontologists are totally wrong in the age of earth and only you're right, you're really leaving the scope of a serious discussion.




Argumentum ad numerum? In the case of this debate, I would ask that you (since you have such an incredible team on your side) then use this wealth of knowledge to refute me, not try and impress me with all of the people that agree with you.

Quote:

At least it's then up to you to let us know some arguments for those wild claims. How old do you think is the earth?




I have, and you chose to respond to my claims by saying I'm wrong simply because professionals have all agreed to something that's contrary to what I believe. I think that by now its up to you to show how dating methods stand up to scrutiny.

I don't think the earth could be more than maybe 20,000 years old. I don't know for sure. The idea never really entered my mind to care about exactly how old the earth is. What's important is that I know the earth isn't anywhere near millions of years old, and it certainly isn't old enough for evolution to take place from molecules to everything we see on earth.

Quote:

That animals have lived millions of years ago is not a "presupposition." We know to a very high degree of certainty, fact even, that this is the case. There is a mountain of physical evidence and scientific data to support this theory.




I think its unscientific to say we know for certain, or for a fact, what happened so long ago. No one is that arrogant. Or maybe they are.

More on that later. For now, I'd rather pick apart that thing you quoted.

The constant name-calling in that source you references is just as bad as that Kent Hovand guy calling evolutionists cultists. Its typically a sign of feeling threatened, or the inability to effectively defend your beliefs.

Quote:

They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world.




Nor do we. Both creationists and evolutionists are dealing with the same evidence. By evidence I mean modern, current observable fact. Its the suppositions and viewpoints and bias that differ.

Quote:

Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds -- have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.




Straw man.

Quote:

Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah's flood.




The flood doesn't account for all of the fossils. There are other ways fossils can form, but I won't get into that because its unimportant.

Quote:

How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained.




Are you sure you even quoted scientists? Animals have been able to live in a sort of 'harmony' for quite some time now. How do elephants, and zebras, and girraffs and lions all live together? Is it really important. Unless you claim that man couldn't have coexisted with dinosaurs? Most of them (I'm assuming the larger ones that required more sustinance) probably died out shortly after creation was cursed. That hypothesis is about as scientific as slapping arbitrary dates on fossils based on how old I THINK they are. Of course, man has coexisted with predators before, I'm sure that dinosaurs wouldn't have been that big of a problem. Unless fictional movies are now scientific evidence?

Quote:

Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow 'drowned' by the flood.




A flood would probably upset the food chain, causing many animals to go extinct. The ones that we find fossilized were probably buried in the huge amounts of sediment disturbance.

Quote:

The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time




To a limited degree. While it is possible that some method (whether it be time, or a sorting by animal environments) sorted out animals from 'simple' to 'complex', its more likely that we'll find overlapping, or fossils being found out-of-bounds, etc. Which is what we continue to find.

Quote:

radioactive decay happens




Ok.

Quote:

and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.




Oh yeah, of course. This happens 100% of the time, because when the dates conflict one another, the date or dates that don't fit the supposition are discarded.

Fact is that dates conflict one another. So the 'normal' would be the supposition of what the date should be. Any method that doesn't agree with this is somehow contaminated. Its hard to argue with someone who won't listen to anything except what agrees with him.

Quote:

Although it may be important to you to believe that The Bible and everything in it is a factual account of reality from God, to everyone else it is as factual and scientific as a tomb of fairy stories.




Is this even an argument? Good for them, by the way. Trying to bully me into feeling bad for believing what I believe is a sign of weakness.

Quote:

Many creationists still think that there are scientific arguments in favor of creationism and bible belief is unrequired.




Good for them, if any of them want to enter the debate I'll set them straight. Until then, that's irrelevant.

Quote:

like radioactive decay




The problem isn't that radioactive decay happens. No one disputes that. Its the specific details. I'm not going to keep repeating my points ad nauseum just because you insist on ignoring them in favor of telling me about a FSM. I've already said why I believe dating methods to be fallacious, you can defend it or not.

As far as your perfect series of fossils, as predicted by IDers, the fossil series is starting to blur or fall apart altogether. If you want sources, just ask. They're all scientific discoveries that are starting to throw the series into question. Of course, some animals simply will never be buried at the same level as others. Trilobites, living in lower parts would probably never be found above a t. rex. That's just common sense and has nothing to do with evolution or a flood. Other fossils are starting to be found outside their timeline, and its happening constantly. It seems the more science discovers, the better off we crazies are.

Its a good time to be a creationist actually, because the same people who believe in evolution regardless of the evidence, are starting to find a lot of evidence against their beliefs. At this rate of discovery, it won't be long now before evolution itself is a fossil. The only thing holding us back now is the fear of having to find an alternative. But that'll pass in time.
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/25/06 21:35

Quote:

Oh yeah, of course. This happens 100% of the time, because when the dates conflict one another, the date or dates that don't fit the supposition are discarded.


More conspiracy theories ?

Quote:

Its a good time to be a creationist actually, because the same people who believe in evolution regardless of the evidence, are starting to find a lot of evidence against their beliefs.


Sources ?

Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/26/06 09:11

Quote:

Argumentum ad numerum? In the case of this debate, I would ask that you (since you have such an incredible team on your side) then use this wealth of knowledge to refute me, not try and impress me with all of the people that agree with you.




Fair enough. But you haven't given me anything to refute. Please substantiate your claim that all scientists are wrong. If you give some sort of reason other than "I was told so in church", it will be my pleasure to refute you.

Quote:

I don't think the earth could be more than maybe 20,000 years old. I don't know for sure. The idea never really entered my mind to care about exactly how old the earth is.




Hmm... At least, you're honest. Is it only the earth or do you also think the whole universe is 20,000 years old?

Quote:

The problem isn't that radioactive decay happens. No one disputes that. Its the specific details. I'm not going to keep repeating my points ad nauseum just because you insist on ignoring them in favor of telling me about a FSM. I've already said why I believe dating methods to be fallacious




No, you haven't. Just let us know what's wrong with "specific details" of radioactive decay.

Quote:

Its a good time to be a creationist actually, because the same people who believe in evolution regardless of the evidence, are starting to find a lot of evidence against their beliefs. At this rate of discovery, it won't be long now before evolution itself is a fossil.




It's interesting that even today creationists still claim that the acknowledgement of creationism by science is "just around the corner". I'm afraid that's far out of touch with reality. Creationism played a large role in science in the 19th century, a small role at the beginning of the 20th century, and no role at all since the 1980s. Since then we can compare DNA sequences of living species and know directly which species evolved from which one.

I think creationism is meanwhile so utterly refuted, so apparently wrong, and so discredited by its lies and propaganda that there is not the slightest chance anymore to be taken seriously by science. Even if there had been a chance in the past, all the new discoveries of transient fossils and DNA evidence in the last 20 years have reduced it to zero.

For similar reasons, creationism is also losing influence in Christianity. A world religion can not afford to reject basic science as in the Middle Ages. Protestantism and Catholizism have meanwhile accepted evolution - this also happened within the last 20 years. The last creationism resorts remaining today are US fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism.

If the trend continues as it does today, in about 50 years only historians will know about creationism.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/26/06 12:34

Quote:

More conspiracy theories ?




Its not a conspiracy. What's happening is what I'd like to call, "Working within a frame." Working within a frame is a good idea, it saves you from wasting time and resources. The only problem is when that frame is wrong, incorrect, whatever.

For example, if I believe that dating methods are correct, why should I question their accuracy every time they're used. If they're right once, then they're right always. Of course, recent discoveries have cast doubt on dating methods. In this case, the frame is bad because scientists aren't going to let their dating methods go without a fight. It doesn't need to be that way. Any true scientist, upon hearing that experimentation could lead to more knowledge, would jump on the chance. We don't see this happen in this case.

Quote:

Sources ?




That will take a short bit of time. At least, since I'm dealing with internet sources, because finding a reliable, non-creationist, pool of references isn't quick. Some of them will require me to refute evolutionists arguments against them immediately. Like say, the dating of recent lava flow (only about 30 years old) as millions of years old. Of course, evolutionists have a way to misdirect the argument away from the evidence, so I'll have to straighten that out before posting details.

Quote:

Hmm... At least, you're honest. Is it only the earth or do you also think the whole universe is 20,000 years old?




My beliefs stem from the bible, which is fairly fuzzy on the subject of the age of the universe. However, I didn't say I thought the earth was 20,000 years old, I just don't think it could be much older than about that age. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the earth was about 6,000 years old. Why you find that less agreeable, I won't know since both 20,000 and 6,000 are pretty much the same amounts of time on the evolutionary timeline. My immediate guess might be that its because its based on the idea that the bible is infallible.

I also don't think the universe could be much older than 20,000. I know, red shift puts a damper on that. However, there are a lot of problems with red shift that I'd love to get into later.

Quote:

No, you haven't. Just let us know what's wrong with "specific details" of radioactive decay.




Ok. Number one is a dead end. 14C in coal. Since we know its there, all we're waiting on is a way for scientists to find some form of contamination. For now, there is no known source of contamination (just guesses). So based on current evidence, we're able to find inaccurate ratios of elements in material that is 'known' to be too old to have that material.

Number two, conflicting dates between different methods.

Number three, old-age dating of material that isn't more than a few decades old. The 1980s eruption of Mt. St. Helens by example. Now, I'm not going to refute the typical evolutionist counter argument to this one just yet, because its laughably illogical and designed simply to steer the argument away from the problem. I'll wait for your response. However, dating methods giving accounts of relatively large amounts of 'decayed' elements is a problem which leads into...

Number four. We assume that we can know the starting ratio of elements. No evolution-scientist has bothered to experiment against this idea because they believe they have no reason to assume dating methods are false. Creation-scientists have 'tricked' evolutionists into testing this hypothesis, and therefore we've found problems with excess Argon in 'young' material. This calls into question the entire validity of the dating methods, since it shows we can't arrogantly assume we know what the starting ratio was. And if we don't know what the starting ratio was then we may as well not even bother with dating since starting ratios are a HUGE variable in the equation and it means any age is worthless.

Number five. We assume that decay rates are constant and that there is no natural process that can speed them up or slow them down. Frankly, I'll have to research this one myself a bit more, but its still an issue. Don't get me wrong here, I'm sure that the half-life rates are more or less as accurate as it gets. My argument isn't that half-life rates change on a whim, but that there may be processes that change the rates.

Now, that's the last time (albeit only the second time) I'm going to state my problems with the dating methods. If you have a counter argument, great, but if you claim that I have not stated any potential problems with it then I'm done. Third time is not the charm in this case.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/26/06 13:06

Quote:

My beliefs stem from the bible, which is fairly fuzzy on the subject of the age of the universe. However, I didn't say I thought the earth was 20,000 years old, I just don't think it could be much older than about that age. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the earth was about 6,000 years old. Why you find that less agreeable, I won't know since both 20,000 and 6,000 are pretty much the same amounts of time on the evolutionary timeline. My immediate guess might be that its because its based on the idea that the bible is infallible.




There is nothing mentioned in the bible about the age of the earth or universe - neither 6000 years nor 20,000 years.

Quote:

I also don't think the universe could be much older than 20,000. I know, red shift puts a damper on that. However, there are a lot of problems with red shift that I'd love to get into later.




Not only the red shift. The first thing that apparently puts "a damper on it" is the fact that we're seeing stars at night.

Most stars are much further away than 20,000 light years. And you don't even need red shift to prove that - astronomy has more than 30 other methods to determine the distance of a star.

Quote:

Ok. Number one is a dead end. 14C in coal.




Yes, it's certainly a dead end as you can not use 14C to determine the age of the earth. There was no coal at that time.

You're normally using U238->Pb206, which determines the earth age at 4.55 (+/- 0.02) billion years. However there are many other dating methods, all with the result of 4.55 billion years within their error margins.

Quote:

Number two, conflicting dates between different methods.




Such as?

Quote:

Number three, old-age dating of material that isn't more than a few decades old. The 1980s eruption of Mt. St. Helens by example. Now, I'm not going to refute the typical evolutionist counter argument to this one just yet, because its laughably illogical and designed simply to steer the argument away from the problem. I'll wait for your response.




Response on what? I an not aware of problems dating the Mount Helens eruption.

Quote:

Number four. We assume that we can know the starting ratio of elements. No evolution-scientist has bothered to experiment against this idea because they believe they have no reason to assume dating methods are false. Creation-scientists have 'tricked' evolutionists into testing this hypothesis, and therefore we've found problems with excess Argon in 'young' material.




"Excess Argon" is one of the long-refuted creationist myths. I'm surprised that some still believe in it today.

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html

Quote:

Number five. We assume that decay rates are constant and that there is no natural process that can speed them up or slow them down. Frankly, I'll have to research this one myself a bit more, but its still an issue. Don't get me wrong here, I'm sure that the half-life rates are more or less as accurate as it gets. My argument isn't that half-life rates change on a whim, but that there may be processes that change the rates.




You should be glad that half-life rates don't change. Because if they did, God-believers lose one of their basic arguments: The fine-tuning of the universe. Apart from the fact that there weren't any God believers in that case.

If the nature constants determining nuclear reactions had been only slightly different - by only 1% - there were no long-lived suns in our universe, and thus no life.
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/26/06 22:06

Quote:

For example, if I believe that dating methods are correct, why should I question their accuracy every time they're used. If they're right once, then they're right always.


I have answered that a couple of times before. If you can show that a widely used method is flawed, you will get a lot of attention, which means a lot of funding, awards, prizes, etc. Therefore scientists have lots of good reasons to disprove or at least alter existing theories. According to your belief Albert Einstein would have had no reason to write papers refuting Newtonian physics since Newtonian physics was so widely accepted in the early 1900s. Instead he did show the shortcomings, got his grants, jobs and Nobel prize. Or take a look at the more recent scandal concerning fake data by that Korean biologist. Within a few months an American scientist pointed out that the results are suspicious and have since been retracted. That's the self-correction inherent in scientific research.
Therefore claiming that methods which have been used successfully for several decades are simply wrong and that nobody has an interest in falsifying them shows a large amount of ignorance concerning science. That's why I was happy to hear that you will be studying biology in which case you should get a better understanding of how science (and the politics of science) works.

Quote:

Of course, recent discoveries have cast doubt on dating methods.


Again, you make a very bold claim but no specifics. Did you know that recent discoveries have shown the Old Testament to be a forgery ?

Quote:

My beliefs stem from the bible, which is fairly fuzzy on the subject of the age of the universe. However, I didn't say I thought the earth was 20,000 years old, I just don't think it could be much older than about that age.


So you are putting your gut feeling of maybe 6000 or 20000 against objective research that's been going on for 100 years.
Quote:

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the earth was about 6,000 years old.


The Babylonians that established their city-states 7000 years ago probably would be rather surprised by that.

Quote:

The 1980s eruption of Mt. St. Helens by example. Now, I'm not going to refute the typical evolutionist counter argument to this one just yet, because its laughably illogical and designed simply to steer the argument away from the problem.


You mean the response that a method which can only date material that's older than 2 million years will yield wrong results when used on a recent sample? Quite a surprise there I guess.
My bathroom scale has a disclaimer saying that it measures from 30 lbs to 250 lbs with an accuracy of +/- 0.1 lbs. When I put a 20 lbs weight on it it will indicate "0.0". Did I just disprove weighting technology or was I too stupid to read the disclaimer? Your pick.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/26/06 22:15

Quote:

The Babylonians that established their city-states 7000 years ago probably would be rather surprised by that.



Where are you getting this reference? By what method did they date babylonian civilization at 7000 years?
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/26/06 22:38

This was based on the Catholic Encyclopedia article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02179b.htm

They cross-reference an incident between Snefru of Egypt (4th dynasty) and Babylonian miners in -3750. You could get the -3750 from the List of Kings, and use that as reference datum for whatever datable material (clay tablets, tools, etc.) you find near the Euphrates.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/26/06 22:44

Oh this is interesting, and a great reference site also. Thank you very much!
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/26/06 22:55

You're welcome. But keep in mind that it is a Catholic website so it should be taken with a grain (or dash) of salt.
Posted By: William

Re: Science and Creation - 04/27/06 04:08

@JCL - Your views on Catholics accepting evolution is very overstated. I found this from www.catholic.com -

Quote:



The Catholic Position


What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.





Guided evolution by God is much different than evolution due to adaptation. Even then, it isn't "solid" in the church that evolution is a proven fact. And I highly doubt in 50 years the idea of God creating humans in their present form will be in history books, lol. Even from a Catholic.com viewpoint.

P.S - For the record, i'm not a Catholic, but like to look into things anyways from time to time.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/27/06 06:33

Guided evolution means evolution was influenced by God to lead towards the evolution of humans (Option 2 in the initial poll). This is unscientific, as it can not be falsified, but is consistent with science. Science makes no distinction between guided and unguided evolution.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/27/06 07:39

Actually JCL i disagree with you here: the mechanism of natural selection precludes any kind of guiding by a conscious force.

The essence of natural selection as proposed by Darwin is necessarily guided only by fitness to survive. The process by which selectable changes occur is genetic mutation. Genetic mutation is understood as innacurate DNA replication.

The only possible area for the "hand of God" would be in the DNA errors, and this is akin to saying anything random on the chaos level is God. Perhaps unfalsifiable, but explanitorily impotent. And it may even be falsifiable: I'm not a molecular biologist, but i suppose there are theories for how DNA errors occur in replication.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/27/06 08:53

I'll have to allow you the argument on the dating methods for now. I don't know enough. I just have one correction to make.

Quote:

When I put a 20 lbs weight on it it will indicate "0.0".




A more accurate metaphor would be:

If I put a 20 pound weight on a scale that says it only measures 2 million plus, and I get a measurement of 3.5 million, did I prove that my weight scale is broken?

Something seems fishy about this to me, but I'm too ignorant to make an argument at this time. Unless I'm mistaken about the measurements of the age of these rocks having been between something like 300,000 to 3.5 million? A scale is broke, even if its only meant to measure millions, if 20 years can cause it to measure millions. I'll have to get back to you on Ar-Ar, if at all, but a method that doesn't know the starting ratio, and then contends to be able to find that starting ratio by getting the measure of the current ratios sounds rather fishy. But I need to read more in depth of how they even determine that the argon they're measuring came from potassium or not. Anyway, that'll be a fun little distraction for the time being.

Either way, the earth being billions of years old really doesn't matter to me. Its secondary to my belief that evolution never happened. Whether it didn't happen in thousands of years, or it didn't happen in millions of years doesn't matter to me.
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/27/06 19:20

Quote:

If I put a 20 pound weight on a scale that says it only measures 2 million plus, and I get a measurement of 3.5 million, did I prove that my weight scale is broken?


In your Mt. Helens example all but one sample were estimated BELOW the 2 million year limit. Only one was estimated at 2.8 million and that with a huge error bracket of +/- 0.6 million. If someone really cared about it they could have checked for contamination in either the machine or the rock samples. Given that the ICR people failed to follow simple directions it's not much of stretch to assume that they also failed to remove contaminations (i.e. older minerals) from their samples. More details are here:
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

Quote:

A scale is broke, even if its only meant to measure millions, if 20 years can cause it to measure millions.


In Computer Science we call this "undefined behavior". If you ignore the documentation and pass bogus values into a function it might work, it might return a wrong value, or it might format your hard disk. Similar thing with the K-Ar dating: if you put junk in, you'll get junk out.

Quote:

Either way, the earth being billions of years old really doesn't matter to me. Its secondary to my belief that evolution never happened. Whether it didn't happen in thousands of years, or it didn't happen in millions of years doesn't matter to me.


The earth's age may be secondary, but the veracity of dating is not. Because once you accept the later you'd have to deal with the timeline of fossils and why there are simpler ones in old strata and more complex organisms in recent ones.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/27/06 20:09

Quote:

The earth's age may be secondary, but the veracity of dating is not. Because once you accept the later you'd have to deal with the timeline of fossils and why there are simpler ones in old strata and more complex organisms in recent ones.




I could just chalk it up to coincidence. If evolution can't happen, but we find fossils proceeding upwards in complexity, millions of years old rock still doesn't change what we can observe today. I know, we can observe 'micro' evolution, so technically we do observe evolution, but these changes are irrelevant. I need to take a nap, and then I have a lot of work to do. Until later...
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/27/06 23:02

Quote:

The earth's age may be secondary, but the veracity of dating is not. Because once you accept the later you'd have to deal with the timeline of fossils and why there are simpler ones in old strata and more complex organisms in recent ones.


Most the honest creationists know what we have to "deal" with Unfortunately both dogmatic, unrealistic types from both the evolutionist camp and the creationist camp cant seem to "deal" with obvious facts. It makes discussions like these largely unproductive for those of us willing to remain objective. For example, while I can readily see the fact of species placed in different strata, I dont attempt to explain it away or fit with my personal opinions. Conversely, if you display the obvious lack of intermediate fossilized evidence needed to show evolutionary transition to the average evolutionist he(she) becomes totally unraveled at the seams. At least that is my observation.

I think the most intelligent people are truly able to adapt their opinions with new knowledge, but conversely I think the "stupidest" people are those that refuse to be objective.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/28/06 02:24

Quote:

I could just chalk it up to coincidence. If evolution can't happen, but we find fossils proceeding upwards in complexity, millions of years old rock still doesn't change what we can observe today. I know, we can observe 'micro' evolution, so technically we do observe evolution, but these changes are irrelevant.




You admit there is evolution on the micro level, as you put it, but you say the changes are irrelevant. How can that be? This sounds like when I would see the hand of God, come out of the sky, that I would simply wave that fact away by saying it might not be God's hand. You are ignoring evidence because it's irrelevant? Hmmmm, for your view maybe irrelevant.

Quote:

I think the most intelligent people are truly able to adapt their opinions with new knowledge, but conversely I think the "stupidest" people are those that refuse to be objective.




I do doubt this has anything to do with intelligence itself, clever people can be just as stubborn and ignorant as stupid ones. I think regarding this topic it's hardly possible to remain objective, or at least we would claim to be more objective than Christians, Christians would claim to be more objective than we are, don't you think? All because we claim that evolution is based upon scientific facts (evidence supporting the main theory, call it whatever you like), and Christians might claim that we are biased and not open for a more spiritual or religious answer to the same question.

It reminds me though, in my opinion truth is the shared knowledge the most people agree upon, and still such a truth would only be valid, not necessarily true. We all have our opinion about truth, but opinions are off course somewhat tricky, when does it end being just an idea? With enough evidence supporting a theory, that's when it becomes more than just an opinion. Yes, you can have another opinion about that, but that would be just an idea. See what I mean?
For a common idea to become a valid truth, we will always need evidence. That's why creationism and also religion for most part is more questionable than the concept of evolution or most scientific theories for that matter. I'm not lying when I say I would like to believe in a God, but without any evidence I just can't and won't either, but that's secondary. That's the kind of objectivity I have, it's not being biased, but there's simply just more weight shifting towards one side of the balance scale and that's definately towards the side of evolution/no God. Simple lifeforms to very complex does not sound very coincidental to me, not very logical either when those simple forms where created by a God and evolved into more complex ones. (the latter is what the evidence gives away, in my opinion no matter how you twist and turn it.) A God, of which I haven't witnessed anything at all creating all different kinds of creatures with flaws and even construction errors does not sound very logical to me. When looking at life around us I do see it's sheer beauty and interesting character and complexity, yet I don't see why this should require a God to be possible to exist. When looking at ancient texts, mostly religious in nature there are so much patterns to be found which all lead to the same kind of obvious religious/mythical events. Does this mean they all go back to the same event? A possibility, but I doubt it, to much differences in the details of the creation stories. Does any linkable story indicate an event that really happened or does every culture at one point in time simply asked itself the same question 'where do we come from?'. A very very simple experiment can explain why some stories are quite similar (not just because of possible interaction of different cultures, which happened a lot also). Ask a random 100 people one exact same question and the majority would answer different, yet chances are quite high that eventhough in general those answers are different (literal), parts of the answers can have things in common. It's tempting to go further offtopic.

Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/28/06 04:51

Quote:

Simple lifeforms to very complex does not sound very coincidental to me, not very logical either when those simple forms where created by a God and evolved into more complex ones. (the latter is what the evidence gives away, in my opinion no matter how you twist and turn it.)


Well for the record I dont believe that God would have created the species as small microorganisms then guided their evolution either. I would believe that He created them whole at each time period and allowed them to proliferate for a unspecified period of time. Perhaps there were various creation events, different ages, and different dispensations. I follow the GAP THEORY of creation which holds the possibility of a prev ious creation, or mutiple previous creations. The site I gave for a link is actually against the gap theory, but I couldnt find any which looked favorably at the theory which means maybe I should write something Here is the wikipedia entry: GAP THEORY

Quote:

I do doubt this has anything to do with intelligence itself, clever people can be just as stubborn and ignorant as stupid ones.


I can agree with this.


Quote:

All because we claim that evolution is based upon scientific facts (evidence supporting the main theory, call it whatever you like), and Christians might claim that we are biased and not open for a more spiritual or religious answer to the same question.


Well I cant speak for all Christians but I know my own level of bias will allow me to do some serious soulsearching if one of 2 things happen:

1)science is able to create life in the labratory.
2)science is able to figure out where everything came from before the big bang.

These two questions are instinctual, and crucial to my belief system. As long as they are unanswered, and continue to be unanswered I will always see the best explanation for the origins of all things to be God.

Darwin talked about the origin of the species, yet he didnt really give any of answers about our origins. If you or any body else are able to ignore these fundamental questions then I am jealous of you, because I could never ignore these questions. Ignorance is bliss.

Quote:

A God, of which I haven't witnessed anything at all creating all different kinds of creatures with flaws and even construction errors does not sound very logical to me.


I also see flaws, but I dont see them as flaws Doesnt make sense does it? Let me rephrase it with an example. A newborn baby human has flaws yet in spite of its flaws, perhaps because of its flaws it is an absolutely perfect specimen. I dont expect that I explained this clearly, yet it is the best explanation I can give.

Quote:

When looking at life around us I do see it's sheer beauty and interesting character and complexity, yet I don't see why this should require a God to be possible to exist.


The main thing is that it is just too complex to have been assembled by chance. Also the symmetry, pattern, law and order begs an explanation which is beyond my comprehension.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 04/28/06 06:44

You admit there is evolution on the micro level, as you put it, but you say the changes are irrelevant.

Talk.Origins seems to agree that micro evolution could be defined as "the shifting of gene frequencies in a local population." (Pardon me if I shouldn't assume that you guys would agree). That means that if we have a light colored moth, and a dark colored moth, and something happens like, oh I don't know...pollution?, and it causes the dark colored moths to decome dominant, then that falls under this definition.

However, since this doesn't address where the dark or light phenotypes came from, its irrelevant to evolution as a whole. If gene frequencies can shift based on environmental pressures, this doesn't mean animals can grow gills when they never had them before. In other words, if we observe micro evolution, we still haven't observed anything that explains the creation of brand new, more complex creatures.

In fact, micro evolution just kind of sounds like a rewording of the idea of natural selection.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/28/06 08:16

Quote:

Conversely, if you display the obvious lack of intermediate fossilized evidence needed to show evolutionary transition to the average evolutionist he(she) becomes totally unraveled at the seams. At least that is my observation.




Which obvious lack? Of course we're finding mostly fossils of species that are stable over a long time period, like 10 million years or more. In comparision, mutations happen relatively fast (within maybe 100,000 years). So we can not expect to find many fossils of species in transition. Still, we've found enough transient fossils for unbroken reconstructions of the most important transitions, like dinosaur-to-bird, reptile-to-mammal, and of course, ape-to-human.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 04/29/06 00:08

Quote:

Talk.Origins seems to agree that micro evolution could be defined as "the shifting of gene frequencies in a local population." (Pardon me if I shouldn't assume that you guys would agree).


Microevolution = change of genetic information. If you look at it from the population level then that's a shift in gene frequencies (which seems a rather complicated way of saying that there are now more new creatures than before).

Quote:

If gene frequencies can shift based on environmental pressures, this doesn't mean animals can grow gills when they never had them before.


Your general definition neither states that this can or can not happen. You merely said that there are now more creatures with a specific gene than before. If this gene is responsible for growing gills then this means they can grow gills, if not then not.

Quote:

In other words, if we observe micro evolution, we still haven't observed anything that explains the creation of brand new, more complex creatures.


Since we're talking about gradualism passed on from one generation to the next you obviously won't get a "brand new" creature. Remember the eye examples posted above ? If the parent organism had a single light sensitive cell then the child will not suddenly have a complete eye with iris and muscle control. What is possibly however is that it will now have multiple light sensitive cells, or a protective layer above the cell.

Quote:

In fact, micro evolution just kind of sounds like a rewording of the idea of natural selection.


Remember: natural selection filters, mutation changes. If there was no change then there could be no frequency shift.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/29/06 02:25

Quote:

Since we're talking about gradualism passed on from one generation to the next you obviously won't get a "brand new" creature. Remember the eye examples posted above ? If the parent organism had a single light sensitive cell then the child will not suddenly have a complete eye with iris and muscle control. What is possibly however is that it will now have multiple light sensitive cells, or a protective layer above the cell.


Marco, the example above is a typical oversimplification. You say that we wont get a "brand new" creature, but thats essentially what your asking for when you talk about the types of specialized cells used for light sensitivity. A small cell such as this compared to another type of functional cell is a lot like comparing one huge factory full of complex synchronized machinery with another. Their make up, operations, and dependencies are completely different. And they are extremely complex.One cannot mutate easily into another one any easier than as a frog can mutate into an elephant. And my example is not that ridiculous if you know anything about the differences between cells.

Show me how a cell can mutate into a completely different type of cell and we will finally have a logical discussion, but stating that cells can change into different types just because they are really small and they have lots of time to do so is no science.

If cells can mutate so frequently into different types of cells then why did it take procaryotes from 2500 million years to evolve into eucaryotes? It makes no sense.

jcl had mentioned a typical evolutionary period of 100,000 between species, I dont know where he is getting this, but irregardless, apparently the first asexual reproducers were well aware of the problems that sex would bring upon the world so they took a billion years or so to evolve copulation methods. which makes no sense also because asexual reproduction is more efficient, quicker and provides a better system for species prolifigation. So natural selection is caught sleeping on the job again.

But enough about that for today, how about we talk about why a trex found a better evolutionary path to be that of the modern chicken...A tyrannasaurus rex would have been fine as the survivor of the fittest, he ate everything he saw and had no real competition, (except for king kong) but instead he evolved into a chicken?...I dont get it.

And how about the banana? What survival mechanism did the banana evolve? If natural selection weeds out the weakest species then I would think that either the banana would evolve some razor sharp spikes on its peeling or else it would become exstinct.

Ahhh Ive got it. Since most fruits propagate by being eaten and having their seeds digested onto the ground, perhaps fruit were really surviving by being eaten? That makes sense, now perhaps I know why the trex would evolve into a wimpy little chicken, because he thought that it would be best for his species to be eaten!
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/29/06 05:15

Quote:

Microevolution = change of genetic information.




So you don't agree with Talk.Origins? Because your definition is more general, and a shift in gene frequencies isn't just any old change. I'll elaborate below.

Quote:

If you look at it from the population level then that's a shift in gene frequencies (which seems a rather complicated way of saying that there are now more new creatures than before).




It might seem that way, but really its just a complicated (?) way of saying that natural selection can shift the frequency of certain genes in different directions. Sometimes causing speciation (either because they can't produce offspring (which can be a non-evolutionary chromosomal change), or because they won't). However, it doesn't say anything about creative mutations. Creative mutations would be an outside force on micro evolution. And since we don't observe creative mutations, then its irrelevant to micro evolution, and therefor micro evolution is irrelevant to macro evolution. I'll conclude that point with some examples below.

Quote:

Your general definition neither states that this can or can not happen. You merely said that there are now more creatures with a specific gene than before.




Yeah, that's because micro evolution doesn't care about creative mutations. If a mutation can write gills, then micro evolution might act on it, but this doesn't happen, and micro evolution only works on existing genes. If an animal grows the beginning of gills, micro evolution won't care, since it won't provide an advantage until the circulation system rewrites itself and the gills somehow finish writing in that same time frame, and then it has to get rid of whatever other method of respiration it had, and then it has to learn how to use the gills effectively. Let's stick to reality just for a little while. We can get back to mutations later.

Quote:

If this gene is responsible for growing gills then this means they can grow gills, if not then not.




Again, this is outside of the definition of micro evolution. It doesn't ask that anything new be created, it just acts on existing genes. You can say that mutations can write gills, but this isn't observable, its just a scientific fairy tale. Apparently science hasn't gotten rid of all the superstitions.

Quote:

Remember: natural selection filters, mutation changes. If there was no change then there could be no frequency shift.




Do you know what gene frequencies are? It ties in with the idea of Alleles.

Let's take a creature that has two possible alleles A and a. There are a few combinations possible.

AA Aa aa

In a very small (for simplicity's sake) population it might look more like:

AA aa Aa Aa AA aa AA Aa AA aa Aa

Gene frequency is a measure of how often A or a appears. Not how often A or a is created. So let's say we have a population like this:

aa aa aa aa aa Aa AA

If we shift the gene frequency it might look more like this:

AA Aa AA Aa Aa Aa aa

Nothing new created, but we might have caused more dark moths to appear than light moths (we rebalanced the genes in the opposite direction). This is micro evolution, but it doesn't address where the dark moths appeared. They've been there all along, and in that case its just as scientific to say they were created as it is to say they evolved. That is, we don't have evidence of either conclusion.

The interesting thing is, evolutionists say that micro evolution will eventually lead to macro evolution. The problem is, the more extreme micro evolution gets, the less variety there is. For instance, if a light morph is recessive and so only appears when we get an 'aa' combination, then micro evolution might cause a population that looks like this.

AA AA AA AA Aa Aa

In this case, there are only dark moths. Micro evolution has actually managed to reduce genetic variance. Of course, this is a very basic example, but I'll give a real life example in a bit.

This leads to the large problem of evolution. Darwin was confused about micro evolution when he first observed it on the Golopagos, and evolutionists are apparently still confused by it today.

Actually, 'evolution' occurs in the creation model too. The problem is that most scientists have it going in the wrong direction (the ones who don't are labeled creationist and ignored as a crazy). Think about how much different dogs look than wolves. But they're degenerate. They are more prone to ailments (disease and physical problems), and overall they're MUCH less fit outside of the care of humans. They didn't evolve upward, and more importantly there's no new data involved in dogs. So how can they look so different, and have so much variety?

That's what happens when you shift gene frequency (micro evolution). Think about how much variety one species has to create all of these different kinds of dogs! Darwin was right when he said it looked like all of the finch species looked like they were derived from one singular animal. Here's where creationists and evolutionists part ways, though, unfortunately our path is backed by evidence, whereas the evolutionist path is paved in guesses and assumptions.

An evolutionist looks at all of the different varieties of finches and says, "Wow, they must have evolved from a more basic species, getting more complex along the way." Of course, the evidence lies in the assumption that this happened. We don't see this occur. Evolutionists just think that it had to have happened, otherwise we wouldn't see these different varieties.

A creationist looks at all the different varieties of finches and says, "Wow, they must have 'evolved' from a more generalized finch, losing variety (genetic potential) along the way." Unlike the evolutionist's assumption, ours is backed by factual observations. If a wolf can do it, why not the finches?

The gene frequency of larger and smaller beaks go different directions based on the needs of the bird in its environment. The gene frequency for a larger body shifts in one direction, while the gene frequency for smaller birds shifts in another. The gene frequency of longer beaks goes in one direction, shorter beaks in another. So on and so forth until we have the variety we see today, of course with each new species having less genetic potential than the original kind. Eventually we, or natural selection, can only selectively breed so much variety out of a kind of animal and if the pressure is too much the line simply ends. On the other hand we'll never see that finch turn into a pickle . This is what you expect us to believe, when not only is there no evidence of it, but the evidence points to you having come to the wrong conclusion about the kind of change that actually takes place.

This all takes place within the realm of micro evolution, and fits the definition like a glove, yet nothing new was created. This is why creationists know that micro evolution will never lead to macro evolution, and why the evidence backs us up. You can add creative mutations to the mix, and micro evolution would work on a creative mutation. Of course, my pet Flying Spaghetti Monster says he disagrees with you. Science isn't about guessing.

Let's do a quick test, the object is to identify which one of these is not like the others.

A). Two species of birds split from one species based on whether or not they have larger or smaller beaks.
B). Another split or splits occur over body size.
C). Another split or splits occur over plumage.
D). Another split occurs where one of the birds has grown the beginnings of gills.

Darwin's ignorance led him to believe that this variety proved that animals had evolved. Of course, he was ignorant because he didn't know about genetics like we do today, and so he thought animals could just morph in any direction they felt like as long as pressure was applied. Since then, we've only ever observed pressure causing a change within the range of the original kind. Unfortunately Darwin's ignorance still carries on today, and has managed to confuse a lot of people about the truth of biology. Its time to let go of outdated doctrine founded in ignorance so we can finally move out of this dark age of science and stop wasting our time trying to prove a dead theory.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/29/06 05:55

Quote:

Since we're talking about gradualism passed on from one generation to the next you obviously won't get a "brand new" creature. Remember the eye examples posted above ? If the parent organism had a single light sensitive cell then the child will not suddenly have a complete eye with iris and muscle control. What is possibly however is that it will now have multiple light sensitive cells, or a protective layer above the cell.




You seem to be saying that cells aren't complex organisms (just because they're organized into a larger creature). I think the walking fungus would disagree with you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/fungus.asp

Ignore that its a creationist website, if you're interested in biology at all even if you're an atheist, its a great read.

Cells, in fact, are where the foundation of all complexity lies. Not only in the genetic code they carry, but in their own structure. To say its as simple as growing photoreceptive cells is, as Nitro stated, a huge understatement. I won't keep repeating what he's said, but you seem to think that cells (because they are just basic building blocks) are themselves basic. Really, if you think about it, humans are just made out of billions of little organisms all working together to form our bodies. Which is why the idea of a consciousness is all the more ridiculous. Scientists claim they want to ignore the supernatural, but life itself is supernatural. To think that we happened on accident is beyond absurd.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/29/06 06:17

Man, scientists really know how to trick themselves. I was looking into the peppered moths a little further. Even if there were no dark moths before the industrial revolution, they could have appeared over a short period of time in several instances due not to mutation, but to incomplete dominance. Since dark is dominant and light is recessive, incomplete dominance looks like this.

AA = dark
Aa = gray
aa = light

(In reality it would probably be more like AA and AB, but for simplicities sake it doesn't matter).

So even if there were no dark moths, they could have been spontaneously created by a mating between two gray moths quite often (but still be hard to find in the general population). This might explain their rarity. If they kept getting selected out, the gene for dark wouldn't have completely disappeared. So, when the pollution started pouring out, two grays mate, the AA happens to match up and since its dominant and selective pressures are gone, it takes over. So, even if there was no dark moth before the pollution, it didn't even mutate. But its called an 'abberant form.' Maybe scientists should learn a little bit more about their field of study.

This 'abberant form' excuse is just desperation on the part of scientists fearing the loss of their precious theory.

But it gets better, when you do a search for peppered moths online (or say in textbooks), this is still used as proof of evolution in action. That cracks me up. Its funny how much a world view can change your perception, and how that skewed perception can cause you to lie to others (even unintentionally). Seems evolutionists are doing what christians have been accused of for years. Whatever...

All right, I'm done for the night.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/29/06 06:48

Quote:

Unfortunately Darwin's ignorance still carries on today, and has managed to confuse a lot of people about the truth of biology


Its not confusion, the human mind automatically discards something which threatens its safe range. Because their bias is so strong they allow illogical, irrational ideas to replace the naked truth. Its a common psychological disorder called "denial" and when is in this state, they are said to be "in a state of denial". It happens whenever someones core beliefs are traumatized. I am not being facestious here either, denial is a psychological mechanism used by the average person who just doesnt want to face things, even seemlingly harmless things, like the existence of God. Here is an exerpt: DENIAL


Quote:

The interesting thing is, evolutionists say that micro evolution will eventually lead to macro evolution. The problem is, the more extreme micro evolution gets, the less variety there is


True, and you provided a good illustration of it with the dogs and the illustrations. Not only will micro evolution not go nearly as far in the direction that evolutionists need it to, but it tends to revert...

Ask any rose breeder if he can get a variety which blooms all year long..it is impossible, they can extend the bloom for a longer time through breeding methods, yet they reach a limit at around 6 months and left untended the species tend to revert back to their original state. It is all completely observable.

You dont need 100,000 years to observe the possibility of evolution(another one of jcl's statements), it is ridiculous to believe that; if you take 100,000 years for the "evolution" between the dinosaurs and the birds for example, (even though positive determination of aging among fossilized animals is virtually impossible) and then you pick an average age of say 10 years, this 100,000 year period is easily lab reproduceable among species with much lower life spans(like drosphilia melanogaster which I have personally done experiments with) yet you see no evolution. Believe me,its been tried and re-tried.

I have already referred to the work of the brilliant Goldschmidt and I have referred to the "hopeful monsters" and "punctuated equiblirium" just to give the evolutionists here some breathing room. If I had remembered correctly, Marco was the only evolutionists here who saw the idiocy of the Darwinian evolutionists. If you want to be a bulldog you can be a bulldog,after all bulldogs are cute-- but this kind of gradual micro evolution COULD NEVER LEAD TO NEW SPECIES, and the fossil record showing a)lack of intermediates and b) species explosions and c)mass extinctions confirms it.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/29/06 09:33

Quote:

So even if there were no dark moths, they could have been spontaneously created by a mating between two gray moths quite often (but still be hard to find in the general population). This might explain their rarity. If they kept getting selected out, the gene for dark wouldn't have completely disappeared. So, when the pollution started pouring out, two grays mate, the AA happens to match up and since its dominant and selective pressures are gone, it takes over. So, even if there was no dark moth before the pollution, it didn't even mutate. But its called an 'abberant form.' Maybe scientists should learn a little bit more about their field of study.

This 'abberant form' excuse is just desperation on the part of scientists fearing the loss of their precious theory.




You presuppose that the peppered moth phenomenon is a gene shift and not a mutation (if we define mutation as a gene modification that didn't exist before). This presupposition is required because otherwise creationism would fall apart. Thus you're making the very mistake that you're accusing scientists of.

I think your moth gene shift explanation has an obvious logical flaw:

Gene shift model: (A = dark allele, a = light allele)
Before industrial revolution: aa aa aa aa Aa AA
After industrial revolution: AA AA AA Aa Aa Aa

Mutation model: (A = dark, a = light)
Before industrial revolution: aa aa aa aa aa aa
After industrial revolution: AA AA AA Aa Aa Aa

"A" is the dominant allele. Thus "Aa" is not just a little grey, it's really dark. If it existed in the moths before the industrial revolution, it would have lead to a dark moth in both the AA and the Aa cases. Those moths would have been eliminated by natural selection - they are more likely to be eaten. Therefore the "A" allele, even if it existed, would have been completely disappeared from the gene pool long ago.

Therefore, the mutation model is much more likely. And as you can see, even a micro mutation increases the variety of genes and doesn't reduce it. It creates a new allele "A" that didn't exist before.

Even if there's no 100% proof for the mutation model - what I posted is evidence, but not a proof - it's justified to mention this effect in school books as evidence for evolution.

However you don't need the peppered moth to prove mutations. Besides nature examples like the cave fish that's definitely a mutation, both harmful and helpful mutations have been observed a thousand times in the laboratory, and it would be absurd to deny them. Example:

Quote:

. Chao et al. (1977) grew wild type E. coli B in a chemostat. Once the vessel reached steady state they innoculated it with bacteriophage T7. The bacteria are sensitive to infection by T7. Needless to say, T7 grew like mad on the bacteria. After a short time, though, a mutation attributable to a single gene appeared in a cell surface receptor site which gave the bacteria complete resistance to T7. This bacterial stain was designated B1. Shortly after this a mutation occured in the virus which allowed it to infect strain B1 (strain T7.1). A second mutation occurred in B1 which made it resistant to this second virus strain as well as to the original virus strain (strain B2). All five of these critters happily coexisted in the same chemostat.




More on mutations:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/29/06 18:14

Quote:

However you don't need the peppered moth to prove mutations. Besides nature examples like the cave fish that's definitely a mutation, both harmful and helpful mutations have been observed a thousand times in the laboratory, and it would be absurd to deny them.


Right, it is absurd to deny them, and the example you gave is a perfect example indeed. What happens is that a virus is normally able to attach itself to a cell receptor, ribosome or other type of organelle. A mutation will misshape the ribosome so that the virus can no longer attach itself--hence the cells can coexist with the virus, they develop immunity.

However, beneficial mutation does not equal creative mutation. Your example would be better if it showed that a cell other than e.coli had evolved, but as it stands there were just small shifts in the folding patterns of proteins does not constitute the generation of a new type of functionality. Simply put: neutrality does not equal functionality.

There has never been anything new created via mutation, only mishapen monstrosities have been produced. It is only a good cooincidence that these monstrosities will not carry virii because of their twisted shapes. In the vast majority of cases, mutation is found to harm the organisms it resides in.

Quote:

- it's justified to mention this effect in school books as evidence for evolution.



I think both creationists and evolutionists need to think OUTSIDE the box on this one. In my opinion neither creation NOR evolution should be taught in high schools. The reason is that it is such a vast subject with such far reaching consequences. IE, a high school student is a little young to be faced with the big questions of God and origins in high school and shouldnt be given more than the most basic overview of creation vs. evolution. There are plenty of subjects that can be studied within biology, chemistry and physics that do not need to drag evolutionary or creationistic theories into the fray.

About the peppered moth: it was a farce anyway. Common logic dictates that the moths couldnt have gotten eaten during the day anyway, moths are nocturnal and noone really knows where they go during the day. Thus birds would not have eaten them because birds hunt in the day, thus natural selection wouldnt have occured. The camoflauge of dark dirty trees or lighter ones wouldnt have mattered at night time either.

The birds that were filmed eating these moths were eating moths which were placed on the trees by experimenters. They even had to place the moths on the hoods of cars to warm them out of their groggy states. For one documentary the moths had to be pinned to the trees..
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 04/29/06 19:11

Quote:

About the peppered moth: it was a farce anyway. Common logic dictates that the moths couldnt have gotten eaten during the day anyway, moths are nocturnal and noone really knows where they go during the day. Thus birds would not have eaten them because birds hunt in the day, thus natural selection wouldnt have occured. The camoflauge of dark dirty trees or lighter ones wouldnt have mattered at night time either.




There are birds that eat them during the night too, and also it's far from impossible that they get eaten during the day too. I'm not sure what colors an owl would see for example, but I'm quite sure that the white color still makes up for a higher contrast during night, than a black color would, being still more easy to spot. Isn't the example still valid when it comes to natural selection? I do agree though that the example itself has it's flaws.

As for textbooks and their content, there's a lot more in them that's not true anyways. Getting rid of that would not be a problem, but what about all the assumptions we get thaught as being truths? Get rid of them and there won't be much left. Not even recorded history is unbiased ("one-sided view-effect"). I agree we should not be thaught things that simply aren't true, and sometimes notes are being left out that the things stated might not be true, but where does it end if you want to get rid of all those things. In the peppered moth case, blame the author and probably the time during which the book was written don't you think?

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 04/29/06 23:25

Quote:

You presuppose that the peppered moth phenomenon is a gene shift and not a mutation (if we define mutation as a gene modification that didn't exist before).




Which is the scientifically correct thing to do. There's little to no information on exactly what's happening (evolutionists are more excited about discrediting creationists), and since this would be the lone example of new data being written, its safe to assume that it isn't the lone example...that it isn't the exception, but rather that its part of the rule.

Quote:

This presupposition is required because otherwise creationism would fall apart. Thus you're making the very mistake that you're accusing scientists of.




Its not required, it just makes sense. No one claims to know exactly where black moths came from. Logically, however, we would deduce that it didn't come from nowhere. Even if it was caused by a mutation, black scales (or melanism, or what causes the peppering) existed in the first place, so you have a long way to go in showing that it couldn't have just mutated to lose control of its color scheme, which is hardly an evolutionary change. Unfortunately we'll never know. It doesn't seem anyone was interested in testing population ratios before the 'melanic explosion', but we know they did find one in 1811, so its safe to assume that they did exist before the melanic explosion.

Quote:

"A" is the dominant allele. Thus "Aa" is not just a little grey, it's really dark. If it existed in the moths before the industrial revolution, it would have lead to a dark moth in both the AA and the Aa cases.




Most of these moths that are phenotypically diametric (light and dark) have incomplete dominance. The peppered moth is no exception. That means that Aa won't be dark, it'll be a little bit darker than light (or gray). In reality a more accurate representation of the incomplete dominance would look more like AB, not Aa, but it doesn't effect the outcome. If you don't believe me then look up incomplete dominance. It might take a bit of searching (like it did for me) but you can also find essays from evolutionists saying that melanism is incompletely dominant.

I don't have the study off hand, but its been suggested that even in typical circumstances, the gray moths are only slightly less fit than the light moths. So it stands to reason that they could have existed before the melanic explosion, which would mean that the A (dark) gene could be floating around, while rarely producing a dark moth, and even in the rare chance that it happened, it apparently would have been selected out (without pollution), which would explain why we rarely found them. This is the logical conclusion, based on past experience, and not founded on wild guessing. If there are two explanations that are possible, it would be wise to go with the simplest of the pair.

But again, I'm not saying it wasn't mutated, I'm just saying that if it was, it wasn't a mutation that wrote 'dark scales'. Those dark scales already existed in the light moths (the peppering), just not as frequent, which suggest there was some genetic control mechanism over the pattern of the scales that could have gotten 'switched off'. I don't think that answer is likely, but its possible and still more likely than melanism being written from scratch, and still says nothing about evolution.

Quote:

it's justified to mention this effect in school books as evidence for evolution.




No its not. The fact that neither you or I has any real proof of what happened means that teaching it as evolution is jumping to a conclusion. Its not proof of evolution. Its proof of natural selection. Its possible they mutated (even if that didn't write anything new), but its more likely that they simply existed all along, but were hidden because they kept getting selected out. I like how mutations can write new stuff in 100,000 years, or 30 years, or a million years, or a billion years. Whatever fits the model of evolution best.

However, in this case, even with mutation it isn't evolution. No matter how much you reduce the genetic order of the moth, it'll always be that moth. It'll just be a little less of that moth than it was before.

Quote:

Besides nature examples like the cave fish that's definitely a mutation,




You argue as if I don't know mutations occur. They occur. But shutting off the growth of the eye, hardly explains how the eye could have been written in the first place. It happened to be beneficial, but I also don't disagree that there are beneficial mutations. I do, however, disagree as to whether or not an organism can write new data via chemically (or other source) induced mutations, or replication mistakes. All known mistakes of said variety reduce order, sometimes to the advantage of the organism, but typically they cause some kind of ailment or disease.

Creationists understand that bacteria are mutating to resist antibiotics (we're not blind to reality) we just don't come to the same conclusion as evolutionists. What evolutionists fail to do is look beyond the fact that these mutations are beneficial, and understand that they haven't written anything new. Nitro outlined a good example.

Another example is conjugation giving a bacteria a gene it never had before to resist something, but doesn't explain where the gene came from (except from another bacteria that already had it), or the cell membrane mutates so that it doesn't transmit material as well (degrading), so it doesn't take in antibiotics, but its harder for the cell to allow beneficial materials in. So on and so forth. There is no modern example (even in the quickly replicating cells of bacteria) of a creative, progressive, whatever you want to call it, mutation.

This illustrates why its so absurd to assume that moths could repeatedly and quickly evolve to become black. Germs can't even evolve on a large scale when they produce trillions and trillions and trillions of generations per year (instead of one like the peppered moth), why should we assume that such a drastic change has occured? Unless you mean we should take it on faith? I thought that was the antithesis of science.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that they [creative/progressive mutations] don't exist. Any other assumption is a fairy tale. Give me a bit more time to study more on genetics, and I'll be able to give a complete summary of why mutations are irrelevant to evolution. I'll probably throw it up on a website because I wouldn't be a true creationist if I didn't start my own anti-evolution website.

Quote:

I think both creationists and evolutionists need to think OUTSIDE the box on this one. In my opinion neither creation NOR evolution should be taught in high schools.




Actually, from my understanding of modern creationism, this is the general concensus. For instance, here's some examples.

1). Peppered moths existed as predominantly light (non-melanic) before the industrial revolution. After the revolution, soot built up on the bark of trees causing the lighter moths to become easy prey for birds. Shortly after the soot began to appear, a dark moth mutated, and quickly became dominant because it was hard to see on the now-darker bark. This is excellent evidence of evolution in action.

(The use of the words evolution and mutation is misleading).

2). Peppered moths existed as predominantly light (non-melanic) before the industrial revolution, but were created by God as both dark and light phenotypes. After the revolution, soot built up on the bark of trees causing the lighter moths to become easy prey for birds. Shortly after the soot began to appear, the melanic phenotype became dominant because it was harder to see. This is excellent proof of the ingenius nature of God's creation.

Of course, both of these involve faith-based assumptions. Here's the correct way to present this example.

3). Peppered moths existed as predominantly light (non-melanic) before the industrial revolution. After the revolution, soot built up on the bark of trees causing the lighter moths to become easy prey for birds. Shortly after the soot began to appear, a melanic phenotype began to quickly become dominant. This is excellent evidence of natural selection in action.


The third example is the best way to present it. We don't know where the dark moths came from, so allowing either camp to cloud our textbooks with assumptions is bad for the critical thinking skills of the student. If we present simply what we know as fact, and then allow the student to come to his or her own conclusion, then we've encouraged them to use evidence to form a hypothesis (some will think the dark moth was created, others will think it was evolved if they want). However, using this example (without proof) to come to conclusions for the student is indoctrination, considering students have no way of understanding the difference, they'll just assume what they hear is right. So its our job to present facts, not faith.

But the argument isn't over the accuracy of documentaries. It doesn't need to get that far. Pinning up moths, whatever, really doesn't matter. Birds aside, the fact is, we don't know what happened. Considering that many of these moths exist in england with diametrically opposed pheontypes, it would be safe to assume that the peppered moth did too. Without a time machine, we'll never know for sure.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/30/06 02:02

Quote:

In the peppered moth case, blame the author and probably the time during which the book was written don't you think?



I guess I can agree. However I home school my kids now and my 8 year old son is already on a path to knowing much more about the facts than most kids will ever know. But this is because he has always had a large curiosity for the life sciences. I just think when he chooses his life's ideologies he wont have to make decisions based on limited knowledge and worst of all: peer pressure to conform. It is already a known fact that public schools have a majority of kids on the anti-God side, it is unfair to expect kids in early development to withstand peer pressure from the majority.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/30/06 07:56

Quote:

I don't have the study off hand, but its been suggested that even in typical circumstances, the gray moths are only slightly less fit than the light moths. So it stands to reason that they could have existed before the melanic explosion




I also don't have the study off hand; according to what I've read both the "Aa" and "AA" moths are dark grey. But even if the "Aa" moths were a lighter gray, it would still have been a selection disadvantage. Remember that the color change happened within decades, so the selection pressure must be very high. Therefore it is very unlikely that gray moths existed all the time before the industrial revolution (except for a few that were created from time to time by a mutation).

Quote:

3). Peppered moths existed as predominantly light (non-melanic) before the industrial revolution. After the revolution, soot built up on the bark of trees causing the lighter moths to become easy prey for birds. Shortly after the soot began to appear, a melanic phenotype began to quickly become dominant. This is excellent evidence of natural selection in action.


The third example is the best way to present it.




While I seldom have reason to agree to you in this discussion, here you're right: Of the three examples you've presented this is the best.

Quote:

There's little to no information on exactly what's happening (evolutionists are more excited about discrediting creationists), and since this would be the lone example of new data being written, its safe to assume that it isn't the lone example...that it isn't the exception, but rather that its part of the rule.




It is your presupposition that the peppered moth is a lone example of new data being written (or not). Science says: It is one of many examples.

But I think we're back to square one meanwhile. It all comes down to the a basic disagreement on mutations. We both agree that mutations exist, and that they change, duplicate, insert, or skip nucleotide sequences in a random way.

Sciences says: Mutations can remove or create features. For probability reasons, a mutation is much more likely to remove a feature than to create a new feature.

Creationism says: Mutations can only remove features. The few beneficial mutations that we can observe in our lifetime or in a lab aren't real mutations and must be explained otherwise.

I think this is the basic point where faith enters the discussion. If you admit that mutations change the nucleotid sequence, then there is no logical reason for denying that they can add new features. The only logical reason I can imagine is saving creationism.

Consider the following example. You have a book, and are copying, adding, removing, and changing letters at random. In most cases the modifications will make a sentence unreadable (a feature disappears). However in a few cases a sentence will get a new meaning (a new feature is created).

Somewhere in the middle of this thread I estimated the probability for this - thus the time of 100,000 years for the developing of a major new feature. This time depends only on two factors: the mutation rate and the required length of the new nucleotide sequence.

There is no mechanism in nature that filters out "beneficial" mutations. We do not know yet exactly which nucleotid sequences in the DNA are responsible for which features. But we do know how the DNA is built and how mutations work. It all comes down to basic math.

By denying the possibility of beneficial mutations, you don't reject only evolution - you reject also mathematics.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/30/06 08:22

Quote:

By denying the possibility of beneficial mutations, you don't reject only evolution - you reject also mathematics.




Well this is the problem I've mentioned before.. to deny evolution is to basically also reject a great deal of other science as well. Not that this is proof that evolution is true on its own, but it sure as hell opens a hornets nest that no one is prepared to deal with, certainly not creationists, most of whom dont know even basic science methods.

For instance, obviously you must throw out genetics, and with it probably molecular biology. This is because DNA/genetic research clearly shows a relationship between the various species of lifeforms on Earth. So if we deny that they ARE in fact related, we must then reject all the genetic data and analysis. This is a tall order.

To me the clearest "proof" of evolutionary relationships is the global genetic similarity among all creatures on Earth. Instead of getting stuck up on whether there are "beneficial" mutations, or whether the peppered moths were really mutants or whatnot, we should concentrate on these larger questions.

Because frankly, peppered moths are not very interesting
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/30/06 08:34

Here's something more interesting than the peppered moth. Another example for a beneficial mutation (although probably not beneficial in Darwin's sense):

http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2002-05/dbnl-tmm061302.php

If you believe in creationism, you probably have to conclude that nature here fixed one of God's flaws in the human design.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/30/06 14:05

First of all you dont know what your talking about on the peppered moth issue, there were no observations made there for natural selection, genetic shifting, mutation or otherwise. I already pointed the utter stupidity of the "observations" to begin with. If your familiar with the study at all, youd know that the moths were placed there by experimenters during the day, as the moths naturally found other places to go during the night. The moths were too groggy to use their real survival mechanism which was to simply fly away. And there were not owls or bats feeding on them in the experiments as phemox said, they were normal birds. So the whole experiment was a joke to begin with.

Quote:

By denying the possibility of beneficial mutations, you don't reject only evolution - you reject also mathematics.




We deny nothing, you deny the nose on your face it it would help prove God doesnt exist, this is because you cannot imagine yourself accountable to a higher being, and you think yourself to be a God.

Quote:

Creationism says: Mutations can only remove features. The few beneficial mutations that we can observe in our lifetime or in a lab aren't real mutations and must be explained otherwise.




Do you not know the meaning of the English word "beneficial"? the mutation we observe is beneficial because it allows bacteria to coexist with virus. A mutation needs to create a NEW PROTEIN to give you positive, creative mutation. Show me a new protein, one with completely new funtionality. Then you have the beginnings of evolution. The second example you showed was just an existing protein which mutated.

Its amazing how little you understand about these processes, and how lost you people become without a verbatim talkorigins link support you.

Quote:

Consider the following example. You have a book, and are copying, adding, removing, and changing letters at random. In most cases the modifications will make a sentence unreadable (a feature disappears) or create an unreadable new sentence (nothing happens). However in a few cases a sentence will get a new meaning (a new feature is created).



Dream on, whos rejecting math now? The chances for a monkey typeing just one correct 9 letter word, "evolution" would be 9^26 (with 9 letter in "evolution and 26 letters in the alphabet) How many trillion attempts would it take the monkey to make one word is a lot. Secondly, if the monkey were to try to make a specific sentence 100 characters long you would need like 100^26. Even if you had a billion monkeys typeing one letter per second you could never come up with such a sentence in a million years.

Quote:

Somewhere in the middle of this thread I estimated the probability for this - thus the time of 100,000 years for the developing of a major new feature. This time depends only on two factors: the mutation rate and the required length of the new nucleotide sequence.




You estimated wrong. The new feature(whatever thats supposed to be) would also depend upon the lifespans of the creatures which are interbreeding, You might have signs showing that evolution took 100,000 years between species which live to be 20 years old, but how about drosphilia melanogaster, how about gypsy moths, it would be easy to approximate the same period of 100000 years into a microcosm of species which live for very short periods.

Goldschmidt bred over a million generations of gypsy moths only to come up with more gypsy moths. Obviously, in the light of these experiments, evolution cannot occur gradually, protein by protein, molecule by molecule given the relatively SHORT time period between major types of creatures.

Quote:

If you believe in creationism, you have to conclude that nature here fixed one of God's flaws in the human design.


The only flaw in God's design is that He hasnt made a mechanism to exterminate all those who disagree with me. (Just kidding) As a matter of fact it is a good thing I am not God...
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 04/30/06 17:36

Quote:

First of all you dont know what your talking about on the peppered moth issue, there were no observations made there for natural selection, genetic shifting, mutation or otherwise.




Hmm. I don't like to answer this, maybe I'm spoiled by Irish's posts. Nevertheless:

Believe it or not, the dark peppered moth really exists, is observable, not glued to trees, and proves natural selection. And even creationists admit it. We only disagree about the question whether it's a gene shift or a mutation.

So I suggest that you, when entering the discussion, read a little more of this whole thread. There are lots of links posted with all sorts of information about the peppered moth. Even if you restrict yourself to creationist websites, then at least read also the more serious ones that don't declare the peppered moth a scientists conspiration. Irish achieved to keep the discussion on a certain scientific level - it's no fun to step down.

The same goes for this:

Quote:

Dream on, whos rejecting math now? The chances for a monkey typeing just one correct 9 letter word, "evolution" would be 9^26 (with 9 letter in "evolution and 26 letters in the alphabet) How many trillion attempts would it take the monkey to make one word is a lot. Secondly, if the monkey were to try to make a specific sentence 100 characters long you would need like 100^26. Even if you had a billion monkeys typeing one letter per second you could never come up with such a sentence in a million years.




Excuse a little cynism, but is this an example of creationist math? 9 out of 26 letters = 26^9 and not 9^26. I don't want to speculate about whether the rejection of science goes so far in creationism that they distribute special 'creationist math' books in church.

This thread contains a lot of information and links to further information. For making qualifed contributions, please read it. Repeating long-refuted nonsense claims over and over is just annoying. And you don't do creationism a favor.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/30/06 20:27

Quote:

Excuse a little cynism


I dont mind jokes and cynism, I have big shoulders and a good sense of humor. However I dont like to see people ridiculed and mocked, especially from others who would never dare to say the same thing in the "real" world.

Quote:

Excuse a little cynism, but is this an example of creationist math? 9 out of 26 letters = 26^9 and not 9^26.



Its true that it is 26^9, however, that is because I simply wrote it backwards, it would be 26^n to any (n)number which is used. It is a simple oversight of which I often do write numbers backward, I didnt realize it untill I was out later on, but I didnt need you to tell me. However picking on my math skills is not very nice, even though i can appreciate how humorous it might have been to someone like you who uses math a lot.

Good job trying to divert the issue, however, the point is still made that you have an impossibility ahead of you in these sentence writing nonsense.

As for the creationist material I dont read much of it, and in all the debates I have had with you people I have probably never onced used a creationist site as a reference or a proof. On the contrary, you use talkorigins links quite frequently and outside your knowledge of physics, you seem to need to rely on talkorigins to inject all of your knowledge about the life sciences and on paleontology.

I dont need creationism to come up with ideas, the fact that moths dont go out during the day, therefore they couldnt be eaten was my original thought. If you dont like, that is fine with me, but at least I thought of it myself, instead of reading it from a link.

The problem I have noticed about your answers is that when they fall outside the domain of any referential talkorigins link, you seem to be at a loss. For example, I posted the impossibility of the 100,000 year period of evolutionary transition period between species of much less life spans(like insects and cells) and you never answered probably because you didnt know, didnt understand ,or had no internet links to back you up.

Quote:

This thread contains a lot of information and links to further information. For making qualifed contributions, please read it. Repeat long-refuted nonsense claims over and over is just annoying. And you don't do creationism a favor.



You need to take your own advice here.

As for science, it doesnt really matter, I have posted links on Goldschmidt's work , punctuated equiblrium and your hopeful monster theories three times to show that your gradual mutation theory was bogus three times yet noone has responded or listened to the theories yet.

I even explained why, on a cellular level that mutation cannot work. And I have showed that the process of mutation needs to occur on a cellular level before it can occur on a larger level. I can only assume that you have failed to understand as you have not replied to any of these theories, either that or you are just willingly ignorant or in denial.

The fact of the matter is, you are not even aware of current evolutionary thought. You are a believer in phyletic gradualism and you probably didnt know what that term meant untill just now. However, this theory was wiped out by your fellow evolutionists long ago. So it doesnt matter if science is handed to you from creationist, evolutionists,Irish Farmer, me, Matt or the man on the moon, the fact of the matter is you just dont get it. I suppose thats the curse you would get by being surrounded by people who want to agree with everything you say, however, in the scheme of things, I am beginning to suspect that you dont know much at all.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science and Creation - 04/30/06 22:02

Quote:

I dont mind jokes and cynism, I have big shoulders and a good sense of humor. However I dont like to see people ridiculed and mocked, especially from others who would never dare to say the same thing in the "real" world.




Some poeple may hide behind the internet, but i'm a jerk in real life too
I tell off these church lamers who walk around in malls trying to convert poeple, and I'd sure as heck tell you off too.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 04/30/06 22:19

Quote:

but i'm a jerk in real life too


Ahh so you admit it, thats the first step to recovery.

Quote:

I tell off these church lamers who walk around in malls trying to convert poeple, and I'd sure as heck tell you off too.


Lol. So you are so confident? Lets see a photograph, or do you not want your photos to be seen? If you are so brave perhaps you would show a picture so that we know that your not really just a little guy. Most people that use the internet to bully people hide behind the internet and are afraid to show their likeness as it would give people too much of the REAL story of their own social and physical inadequacy. Lets put a face behind your awesome bravery, then I will believe that you would have the cohones to refer to me as anything other than "sir" in the real world. Lol.

BTW. I hope this is not another attempt to divert from the real science issues at hand.

Quote:

I tell off these church lamers who walk around in malls


Besides, why would you go to the mall? I never go to the mall, the mall is ridiculous.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 00:57

Quote:

also don't have the study off hand; according to what I've read both the "Aa" and "AA" moths are dark grey. But even if the "Aa" moths were a lighter gray, it would still have been a selection disadvantage. Remember that the color change happened within decades, so the selection pressure must be very high. Therefore it is very unlikely that gray moths existed all the time before the industrial revolution (except for a few that were created from time to time by a mutation).




Ok. I didn't find the original study that showed that insularia (gray) moths were about as fit as typical. But after about 20 minutes of searching, I found something even better. I'll quote the highlights.

Quote:

We have estimated the fitness of insularia, compared with the other two morphs, for several data sets. As a rule its fitness lies between that of carbonaria and typical, but nearer to typical and sometimes very close to it.[...]The results suggest that insularia may continue polymorphic while carbonaria is likely to disappear.
Quote:



Wait a minute! Isn't that exactly what I said probably happened? I believe that black moths existed at creation (much like the many other UK moths) and that selection pressure probably drove them out. However, its likely that melanic moths were 'hidden' in intermediate insularia moths. I'm not saying this proves that I'm right. It just proves that its a likely conclusion to make.

Furthermore, I still am waiting to hear a different explanation besides loss of control over its melanic pattern. Because even if I'm wrong, I'm still probably right.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00360.x

Quote:

While I seldom have reason to agree to you in this discussion, here you're right: Of the three examples you've presented this is the best.




All creationists ask for is a bit of fairness.

Quote:

It is your presupposition that the peppered moth is a lone example of new data being written (or not). Science says: It is one of many examples.




Actually, my real conclusion on the possibility of mutation is that it didn't even have to right anything new. Its probable that it mutated towards black without the need to write new information. I can't back this up, but why would it have to write melanic data, when it already has melanic data? It is peppered after all.

Quote:

But I think we're back to square one meanwhile. It all comes down to the a basic disagreement on mutations. We both agree that mutations exist, and that they change, duplicate, insert, or skip nucleotide sequences in a random way.




Yeah, that's where we're at.

Quote:

The few beneficial mutations that we can observe in our lifetime or in a lab aren't real mutations and must be explained otherwise.




We would say that they are mutations, but we would say that when you understand exactly what is being affected, you realize why even beneficial mutations have nothing to do with evolution. Maybe 'dead end' evolution. Sometimes bad things can happen for good purposes. If it becomes harder for the cell membrane to transport materials, the germ might not take in antibiotics, but it will have a harder time attaining the material it needs to survive. Which normally would make it less fit. And once it becomes immune, then in general it makes it less fit. Of course, it doesn't kill it outright, so future generations are able to survive and thrive. But on the genetic level, nothing new was written. All modern examples of beneficial mutations fall under this general definition. Except maybe that one you quoted, but I haven't had time to digest it very well.

Quote:

I think this is the basic point where faith enters the discussion. If you admit that mutations change the nucleotid sequence, then there is no logical reason for denying that they can add new features. The only logical reason I can imagine is saving creationism.

Quote:

Consider the following example. You have a book, and are copying, adding, removing, and changing letters at random. In most cases the modifications will make a sentence unreadable (a feature disappears). However in a few cases a sentence will get a new meaning (a new feature is created).




Now we're starting to get into what is quickly becoming my home terf. However, I'm not going to bother debating you on this just yet. But, its not just the probability of a beneficial mutation occuring that is a problem. There are other huge hurdles it must overcome.

Quote:

certainly not creationists, most of whom dont know even basic science methods.




This is coming from the person who referenced the logical pothole that the first single celled organisms lived off cell 'power plants' that themselves lived symbiotically with larger creatures or whatever nonsense that was. Leave the discussion to the adults.

Quote:

This is because DNA/genetic research clearly shows a relationship between the various species of lifeforms on Earth. So if we deny that they ARE in fact related, we must then reject all the genetic data and analysis. This is a tall order.




No we don't. But the matter of DNA similarity is merely coincidental to creation. Monkeys have 90% or so DNA in common with us (depending on who you ask), yet they only have 29% of their proteins in common with us. So, if this non-coding DNA has so much in common with us, then I'm really not concerned because what explains our dissimilarities is the coding DNA.

But again, if you write three different programs in c-script that require a similar algorithm that might do slightly different things, chances are most of the code is going to look the same for that algorithm in spite of the small differences. But you created it, so why do you automatically assume that similarity invokes evolution? Well...let's not even get down that road...

Quote:

If you believe in creationism, you probably have to conclude that nature here fixed one of God's flaws in the human design.




I'll have to pick this apart later. Doesn't really concern me.

Quote:

that they distribute special 'creationist math' books in church.




Creationism and evolution aren't discussed in church.

Until later, I'm probably done for the night.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 01:00

Wow, I really messed that post up. I'm tired, I've been up since four in the morning. Ugh.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 01:08

Quote:

Quote:

I tell off these church lamers who walk around in malls trying to convert poeple, and I'd sure as heck tell you off too.


Lol. So you are so confident? Lets see a photograph, or do you not want your photos to be seen? If you are so brave perhaps you would show a picture so that we know that your not really just a little guy. Most people that use the internet to bully people hide behind the internet and are afraid to show their likeness as it would give people too much of the REAL story of their own social and physical inadequacy. Lets put a face behind your awesome bravery, then I will believe that you would have the cohones to refer to me as anything other than "sir" in the real world. Lol.

BTW. I hope this is not another attempt to divert from the real science issues at hand.




What would you do? Break his jaw if he did some silly remark?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 04:40

Every anonymous except the last one was me.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 06:02

Ok, I want to respond to your link that you posted of the 'milano mutation.'

I find it to be a distraction from the point (namely that beneficial mutations that fail to write anything new and are founded in a loss of information proves evolution or disproves creation), but I'll respond anyway just so that you can have one less example to fall back on when the going gets tough for 'the little theory that could(n't).'

To break this down, this appears to be a point mutation unless I'm wrong. Which was my first clue that this wasn't really a creative mutation (maybe that's not what you're claiming, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page). I'll address whether or not this is an 'improvement' of the creation or not. Because you're right, it acts as a better anti-oxidant, but that's a distraction from the point. It does it by reducing order and there are more problems besides.

Onwards, the protein that normally assembles HDLs (high density lipoproteins) had one of its amino acids switched with cysteine. Under normal circumstances, low HDL levels lead to heart disease. However, they've found that people with this mutation have low HDL levels and still no problems.

Of course, you're probably referring to the 'new' ability for the protein to aid in anti-oxidation (?). The problem is the difference in specificity. The ability to write HDLs is much more specific, conversely there are many chemicals that will act as anti-oxidants. This 'ability' grew out of the loss of order. It remains to be seen what kind of health problems could arise from the inability to write HDLs like the body is normally able to.

The point is, there are numerous chemicals that act as anti-oxidants, so this ability is hardly ground breaking.

http://www.biol.canterbury.ac.nz/people/gieseg/freeradicals.shtml

What is worrisome is that, somehow the loss of HDLs is being considered evolution, or at least proof that creation is flawed. Our bodies are able to regularly take in anti-oxidants. We hardly need mutations to take advantage of them, and really if we were taking in anti-oxidants like we should be, coupled with our original better programming of the ability to make HDLs we would be better off. Now these people, instead of having the potential of a 'one-two punch' of anti-oxidants and HDLs, just have anti-oxidants. Great. Let's bring on some more evolution!

Let's remember that if the Bible is true, HDLs would be ideal, because we would have been eating better, living better, etc at the beginning of creation. To think that our rubbish modern diet and way of living has any bearing on our creator is ridiculous. Living healthy and eating healthy is a much better prevention of heart disease (and other health problems) than any mutation. Its just so much easier to make a quick McDonald's run, or cook up some buttered noodles than it is to prepare a salad (and who wants to eat it with barely any dressing or meat anyway?) or make a bowl of fruit, etc. Plus, who really has time to work out anymore (sarcasm)? Well, I do, and I actually look forward to it, but most people would rather not (of course I make the mistake of opting for the McDonald's run far too often).

Not only that, but due to this mutation, many of the proteins manufactured bind together, restricting their usefulness.

Here are some more sites for information on the mutation. Every time I see these arguments I'm reminded of a line from a pretty decent christian punk-rock band. "Your fist in His face/and in His hand/He holds your breath." This line couldn't be more poignant.

I hope that before its too late you'll see things from a different point of view, because as anxious as I am about having to be judged for my sins, I can only imagine what it'll be like to answer to such a slap in God's face. I can only imagine what we look like from his perspective. First we screw up creation by sinning, and then we use the screwed up creation to 'prove' he doesn't exist. Interesting.

Here are some more links you may find useful about the mutation...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-02/CMC-bbgm-1502100.php
http://www.science.doe.gov/Science_News/...%20Mutation.htm

I hope that clears things up for you. I know how foggy things can get on the evolutionary side of the river.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 06:45

Quote:

Lets see a photograph, or do you not want your photos to be seen? If you are so brave perhaps you would show a picture so that we know that your not really just a little guy.




@NITRO77: I know that defending creationism requires strange methods. But Voodoo?? Or for what else would you need photographs of your opponents? Creationists must be very desperate.

Quote:

Good job trying to divert the issue, however, the point is still made that you have an impossibility ahead of you in these sentence writing nonsense.




Ok. Your monkeys are hammering away on the typewriters and you want to get a certain sentence of 100 characters. Any character not fitting this sentence is immediately erased (natural selection). The average time for a single monkey to finish your sentence is 100*26/2 = 1300 = 22 minutes.

You don't need a billion monkeys. Nor a billion years. What you need is some math lessons for creationists.

Quote:

The problem I have noticed about your answers is that when they fall outside the domain of any referential talkorigins link, you seem to be at a loss. For example, I posted the impossibility of the 100,000 year period of evolutionary transition period between species of much less life spans(like insects and cells) and you never answered probably because you didnt know, didnt understand




Yes, I'm at a loss and didn't understand what you are permanently posting about your "impossibility". But the reason is not your thoughts falling outside the domain of talkorigins. The reason is more that I don't get your thoughts at all.

The 100,000 years estimate was based on an organism like the cave fish that lost and regained eyes within 100 years, and the assumption that the evolution of an eye requires 1000 consecutive steps of comparable complexity. See

http://www.coniserver.net/ubbthreads/sho...true#Post640933

Such an organism has maybe 2 effective mutations per replication and a replication period of 2 years, thus an effective mutation rate of 1 per year. If we have species with higher mutation rates, the 100,000 years period gets accordingly shorter.

Quote:

As for science, it doesnt really matter, I have posted links on Goldschmidt's work , punctuated equiblrium and your hopeful monster theories three times to show that your gradual mutation theory was bogus three times yet noone has responded or listened to the theories yet.




Hmmm. I see that you've found some names and theories, but got them utterly mixed up. Goldschmidts "hopeful monsters" (I had to look that up) was a long-abandoned outsider hypothesis and has nothing to do with modern evolution at all. Thus I have indeed no idea what you wanted to tell us by posting it three times. Punctuated equilibria on the other hand is a modern evolution theory...

Quote:

The fact of the matter is, you are not even aware of current evolutionary thought. You are a believer in phyletic gradualism and you probably didnt know what that term meant untill just now. However, this theory was wiped out by your fellow evolutionists long ago.




...but you've got again something very wrong about "phyletic gradualism". It was not "wiped out", but is in contrary the very basis on which the punctuated equilibria theory was developed.

Gradualism and punctuation are part of evolution, "hopeful monsters" is not. We know that mutations occur with a relatively constant rate in a species. However their effect can vary drastically depending on external and internal circumstances. We observe both gradualism and punctuation in nature, although some parts of the punctuated equilibria theory are disputed.

-

I see that you're beginning, maybe in lack of serious arguments, to permanently repeat in your posts that I "don't get it" and "dont know it". Indeed I know very little about evolution - but apparently still a lot more than most creationists. If you think that I don't understand something, please explain it to me. Claiming other people's ignorance, but exposing one's own lack of knowledge in the very same sentence is maybe not the best way to defend creationism.

In an online discussion, most people - me included - prefer to answer on clear and understandable statements, and don't like to answer on a bunch of nebulous claims. When people don't answer or "fail to understand" what you're saying, a possible reason might be not their dumbness, but some incoherence or lack of sense in your words. Of course - I don't want to get in trouble with your Voodoo cult - this is only a theoretical possibility that I only want to mention here for the sake of completeness.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 07:00

Quote:

We have estimated the fitness of insularia, compared with the other two morphs, for several data sets. As a rule its fitness lies between that of carbonaria and typical, but nearer to typical and sometimes very close to it.[...]The results suggest that insularia may continue polymorphic while carbonaria is likely to disappear.




You have a point here. I just want to make the following objection:

The fitness of insularia was estimated in recent years after the decrease of industrial pollution. The trees are brighter, but probably not so bright as they were before, due to rest pollution. Therefore it is quite likely that the fitness of insularia is now higher than it was before the industrial revolution.

Anyway, I won't insist of the peppered moth being a proof for a beneficial mutation (at least unless I happen to find some study with some other information). So let's that be just a proof of natural selection.

Quote:

But, its not just the probability of a beneficial mutation occuring that is a problem. There are other huge hurdles it must overcome.




Yes, this is the essential question: which hurdles?

Creationism requires some hurdles to prevent beneficial mutations, otherwise probability would dictate that they happen. So what hurdles should that be?

Quote:

What is worrisome is that, somehow the loss of HDLs is being considered evolution, or at least proof that creation is flawed. Our bodies are able to regularly take in anti-oxidants. We hardly need mutations to take advantage of them, and really if we were taking in anti-oxidants like we should be, coupled with our original better programming of the ability to make HDLs we would be better off. Now these people, instead of having the potential of a 'one-two punch' of anti-oxidants and HDLs, just have anti-oxidants. Great. Let's bring on some more evolution!




If I understand you right, you're denying that the mutation is beneficial because anti-oxidants, rather than produced in the body as through this mutation, can also be eaten.

I don't think that members of that mutated family would agree to you. The body-produced antioxidant is obviously a lot more effective than having HDLs plus eating dietary supplements. Besides, even today, and certainly in the past, people had to eat what they get, and be glad that they get anything. You are not seriously telling me that cave dwellers 30,000 years ago, with an average life span of 18 years, lived on a healthy diet with antioxidants?

But even this is beside the point. What we have here is a new feature - just what creationists think can't ever happen. A modified apoA-I protein, unknown before, comes into existence - adding a new allele to the human gene pool. It's not the loss of the HDL producing proteine that matters here. HDL is unnecessary when you have that mutation. It's the fact that this is definitely a mutation - not a gene shift - that has an observable and positive effect on the species and increases the gene pool information.

It is estimated that organisms like humans accumulate between one and six effective mutations per replication. Most lead to the loss of some proteines, but some, as you see, lead to the creation of something completely new.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 14:36

[quoteOr for what else would you need photographs of your opponents? Creationists must be very desperate


I dont believe that Matt would ever dare to tell me off in the public real world as he has asserted, and I am dying for proof to satisfy my speculation. Perhaps the fact that you cannot find his likeness anywhere proves that he has a basic fear of being seen which would prove that if he has such social fears, then he would certainly never be able to hold his own in a real-life debate with me. It is just a theory. No I would not beat him up or stick pins in a doll. I know I should believe him if he says he would "tell me off", but I just dont believe that. I suppose everyone should believe Matt_Aufderheide when he makes such claims.

Quote:

Ok. Your monkeys are hammering away on the typewriters and you want to get a certain sentence of 100 characters. Any character not fitting this sentence is immediately erased (natural selection). The average time for a single monkey to finish your sentence is 100*26/2 = 1300 = 22 minutes.



OK, but they cant be immediately erased as you said. Natural selection would only cause the calculation to restart at the next generation, therefore the probability of 100^26 would occur at each iteration.

This math (100*26/2), I dont get where you came up with this. Im not saying its wrong, I would just hope you show how it is arrived at a little closer.

Quote:

Yes, I'm at a loss and didn't understand what you are permanently posting about your "impossibility". But the reason is not your thoughts falling outside the domain of talkorigins. The reason is more that I don't get your thoughts at all.

The 100,000 years estimate was based on an organism like the cave fish that lost and regained eyes within decades. Such an organism has maybe 2 effective mutations per replication and a replication period of 1 year, thus an effective mutation rate of 2 per year. If we have species with higher mutation rates, the 100,000 years period gets accordingly shorter.





jcl jcl jcl. The 2 mutations per replication may be accurate indeed,and I am assuming the reason why you see a replication period of 1 year is because that is the fish's reproductive cycle (new babies every year or so). So theoretically you have, according to this model---around 100,000 generations of cave fish. And because the evolution occurs over a period of 100,000 years we cannot readily observe it.

All this is fine and valid theory, I am not disagreeing with the rational of the thought process behind it, but I am disagreeing with it occuring because the same circumstances can be reproduced in the lab without waiting 100000 years with a time-lapse camera:

If you substitute drosphilia for the cave fish you now have a replication period of 1 day, because drosphilia lay eggs every day(and I have done experiments with drosphilia so I know this experiencially). Using the same process of 2 mutations per generation, now you have reduced your period from 100,000 years to 100,000 days.

If you replace the cavefish for e.coli bacteria, then your replication period goes way way down to a place where the entire 100,000 years should be easily observable in the lab.

My point is simply this: Gradual macro-evolution evolution through mutation has never been observed in the labratory or in the wild, even though insects and microspecies would provide the proper specimens for observation for not only are there lifespans shorter, but more importantly their breeding cycles(or replication periods) are much much shorter

So somebody please tell me you understand my point. Its fine to reject my point, but do you at least understand it? Does anyone understand it?

Why would I call the 100,000 year period an impossibility? Because I thought you were using it as some type of a constant involved in evolutionary change. In that case it would be impossible to apply it to a dinosaur, which approximating the gestation periods of say a modern elephant (22 months), an elephant gives birth every 5 years, but it takes an elephant 9-12 years to reach sexual maturity, so now your theoretical replication period goes up exponentially and puts dinosaur evolution well out of the ranges of their fossil records, which means that gradual evolution at that rate never could have occured.
Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 14:48

natural evolution versus influenced evolution is hard to distinguish.

We are intelligent, we are products of evolution, and we remain in the process of evolution.

Evolution is not over, we will continue to evolve.

At this point, future evolution WILL be influenced and intelligent considering what we are doing with genetic manipulation, social decisions, biology.

Intelligent life will always influence evolution, directly and indirectly. It is influenced.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 15:24

Quote:

OK, but they cant be immediately erased as you said. Natural selection would only cause the calculation to restart at the next generation, therefore the probability of 100^26 would occur at each iteration.




How often must I repeat that evolution does not work this way? It works in small consecutive steps, like characters in a sentence. The characters already written are preserved in the gene pool when they aren't deleterious. Evolution never suddenly creates a sentence as a whole.

The 100*26/2 seconds are calculated this way. Imagine you want to write "creationism requires Voodoo.". The monkey just types "a"..."z" in random order. The average number of different letters you need until hitting "c" is 13 (half of the letters available). If we allow the monkey to hit the same key several times, it would be 26. We now have the "c" and the monkey continues to type. Everything but the "r" is now erased. Again it needs 13 seconds average time to hit the "r". And so on. Resulting in 1300 seconds for a 100 character sentence. I hope this is understandable.

Quote:

for the cave fish you now have a replication period of 1 day, because drosphilia lay eggs every day(and I have done experiments with drosphilia so I know this experiencially). Using the same process of 2 mutations per generation, now you have reduced your period from 100,000 years to 100,000 days.

If you replace the cavefish for e.coli bacteria, then your replication period goes way way down to a place where the entire 100,000 years should be easily observable in the lab.




But we have observed lots of mutations on e.coli and drosophila in the lab:

Quote:

Chao et al. (1977) grew wild type E. coli B in a chemostat. Once the vessel reached steady state they innoculated it with bacteriophage T7. The bacteria are sensitive to infection by T7. Needless to say, T7 grew like mad on the bacteria. After a short time, though, a mutation attributable to a single gene appeared in a cell surface receptor site which gave the bacteria complete resistance to T7. This bacterial stain was designated B1. Shortly after this a mutation occured in the virus which allowed it to infect strain B1 (strain T7.1). A second mutation occurred in B1 which made it resistant to this second virus strain as well as to the original virus strain (strain B2). All five of these critters happily coexisted in the same chemostat.




There were also mutations observed on drosophila. Other bacteria aquired the ability to eat nylon. However - what else can a bacteria develop in a chemostat with a bacteriophage, other than resistence to that bacteriophage? Species only aquire features within their possibilities and on selection pressure from the environment. For instance, you won't ever see a bacterium to grow ears or eyes. We can't observe in a lab what you call "macro-mutations". Large scale mutations only develop on complex species, and require many steps and a lot of time.

What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species. I don't know if this was observed so far, but I think it's entirely possible.

However, "macro-mutations" leading to speciation are very well observed in nature - in the fossil record. Birds evolved from dinosaurs and mammals evolved from reptiles within some 10 million years. We have enough transient fossils to conclude that we observed most steps of both evolutions.
Posted By: GhostwriterDoF

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 17:58

Ah, I see the debate continues, some new material too. Voodoo even. Threats of macho macho and challenges to manhood? This does not constitute an argument and even lacks an entertaining quality.

Still waiting to see a valid argument as to why Creationism would have to reject evolution in any way shape or form. It is a mystery to me as to how it even excludes the theory.

Isn't natural selection just a small equation towards the change in evolution? It has always been my belief that the factors that lead to change in mutation or selective processes are as random and varied in nature as nature itself.

Adaptation for survival would probably be the biggest ingredient towards change in evolution. Although I would have to agree with jcl that the change is a gradual process in any case.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 20:33

Quote:

The fitness of insularia was estimated in recent years after the decrease of industrial pollution. The trees are brighter, but probably not so bright as they were before, due to rest pollution. Therefore it is quite likely that the fitness of insularia is now higher than it was before the industrial revolution.




I'm not going to argue that. I was simply pointing out there there are much simpler explanations for why we found a melanic moth before the revolution (besides the same mutations accidentally happening over and over). I figured it was just because they either existed (in such small numbers as to make their discovery difficult) or the insularia existed, 'hiding' them. Sorry if I'm being repetative, its just that you guys like to reference okham's razor when it works for you, not against you.

Quote:

Anyway, I won't insist of the peppered moth being a proof for a beneficial mutation (at least unless I happen to find some study with some other information). So let's that be just a proof of natural selection.




That's what annoyed me so much about trying to research it. Every paper was like, "Why would anyone disagree with this, because they land on bark and it doesn't matter where," etc etc etc. There just isn't really any information about the details floating about.

Quote:

Yes, this is the essential question: which hurdles?




I'll get into this more with your monkeys example. But number one, if most mutations are detrimental, some of them are probably going to stick and start cycling through the population (albeit not as much, but if they aren't outright lethal). Secondly, you say its just a matter of time as some of the mutations build up. But mutations can't just constantly build up if they're detrimental. Some of them might stick, but those organisms are less fit. So if in rewriting an entirely new gene, it has to go through 20 different steps of uselessness or detrimentality, or outright lethality, then how can we possibly hope for it to ever reach its endpoint? If it can be said to have an endpoint.

But, I'll wait a bit to get more elaborate.

Quote:

Creationism requires some hurdles to prevent beneficial mutations, otherwise probability would dictate that they happen. So what hurdles should that be?




That's true. However, evolutionists require that organisms can wait around without too many detrimental effects while their DNA is scrambled over and over again to eventually write something new. This doesn't make sense to me. If I scramble eggs with a fork, I don't expect that if I scramble them long enough they'll become anything other than scrambled eggs. Of course, this is a bad parallel to genetics, but it illustrates my point.

Quote:

If I understand you right, you're denying that the mutation is beneficial because anti-oxidants, rather than produced in the body as through this mutation, can also be eaten.




No, what I'm saying is that since we already have the ability to consume and use anti-oxidants, the loss of HDLs is negative because now all we can take advantage of is anti-oxidants. Before we could have made use of both. That would be much more healthy.

This mutation is definately beneficial.

What I'm saying is that, its specific ability to target hot spots was already written in the protein. So its specific role wasn't really written. In fact, its anti-oxidant ability wouldn't even be considered beneficial if it weren't for this fact.

Targeting of hot spots - HDLs
Targeting of hot spots - anti-oxidants

This is where the difference in information lies. In order to acheive the anti-oxidant, the order of HDLs has to be lost. Without the prefix of those two examples (the 'targeting of hot spots') the loss of HDLs in favor of anti-oxidants would be considered hugely detrimental. This mutation via loss is only favorable because of the originally written DNA. Besides, you keep focusing on how awesome this mutation is. I won't disagree, its got some pretty good benefits to it, and its true benficiality is going to shine through in the medical field. However, nothing new was written. Order was lost to 'acheive' this ability. No matter how many times mutations like these occur, we will always remain humans.

Quote:

A modified apoA-I protein, unknown before, comes into existence




Its not really a different protein. The only change was the switched amino acid. Technically its the 'same' protein it was before, it just has a different role now. Normally this protein would be able to produce HDLs well enough, but it doesn't do that so well anymore. This protein wasn't written though, it was changed.

Quote:

It's not the loss of the HDL producing proteine that matters here.




The protein wasn't lost. It was given a new name in effect of its new function.

Quote:

Most lead to the loss of some proteines, but some, as you see, lead to the creation of something completely new.




Ok, this is where we differ. You think that because one amino acid was changed, and they gave it a new name that its a brand new protein. If I take one brick out of a wall and add a different brick, is it a different brick wall?

Notice the similarities between the two names. Its not like the protein was completely gone, just some of the data in the protein was lost. In the process it gained a new function.

Quote:

Imagine you want to write "creationism requires Voodoo.".




This example is SO toned down from reality its beyond funny. There isn't just a pool of DNA waiting to be written. You might be more accurate to say you want to rewrite the sentence

"Run over the ground."

to the sentence

"Fly through the sky."

Now, if you let monkeys randomly type at the keyboard, even if they get a letter right, it has to make sense in the overall picture. In other words ending up with the word 'Ruy' wouldn't be useful because even though its closer to 'Fly' it makes no sense. We can randomly get closer to a different sentence, but because the DNA is already ordered, it has to fit into the larger picture of the order because the creature is dependent on this pre-existing order to live.

Step 1:

"Ruy over the ground."

Animal is selected out. Return to origin.

Step 2:

"Run over the groons."

Animal is selected out. Return to origin.

This isn't exactly how mutations and DNA work, but its closer than your example.

Quote:

what else can a bacteria develop in a chemostat with a bacteriophage, other than resistence to that bacteriophage?




Its evolution, in the wrong direction. If pressure applied can only reduce the order of the genetics, then evolution has a huge hurdle to overcome, namely the constant degrading of DNA.

Quote:

What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species. I don't know if this was observed so far, but I think it's entirely possible.




New species of fly wouldn't be that important. A new species of bacteria would be another thing. If we saw one bacteria become another, then creationists might have a problem. As it is, all pressures do is force bacteria to adapt within their range, or lose data to adapt.

This is a very simplistic example, but if I put pressure to select out cells with an 'A' and we have a cell with

ABCDEFG

and after applying pressure the creature becomes BCDEFG it doesn't matter. This just goes to show that organisms can survive by losing some of their DNA. Ok, let's move on to some real examples.

I'm not going to argue the nylon issue because its a lengthy, and complex problem. I will refer you to this. You can ignore it, or not. But since you like to reference talk origins, its only fair that I be able to reference this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna work on my RPG. Good day.

Oh wait, one more thing.

Quote:

Still waiting to see a valid argument as to why Creationism would have to reject evolution in any way shape or form. It is a mystery to me as to how it even excludes the theory.




Creationism doesn't request a rejection of evolution, common sense does.

Quote:

Isn't natural selection just a small equation towards the change in evolution?




Its not an equation, its a variable in the equation.

"A + B * C / D = F" isn't quite the same as saying "D".

Quote:

It has always been my belief that the factors that lead to change in mutation or selective processes are as random and varied in nature as nature itself.




Nature is random? Its so well ordered, I don't see how you have any possible claim to this.

Quote:

Adaptation for survival would probably be the biggest ingredient towards change in evolution.




Maybe, if it did anything other than reduce order.

I don't know how much longer I can keep this up.
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/01/06 23:28

Quote:

There isn't just a pool of DNA waiting to be written. You might be more accurate to say you want to rewrite the sentence

"Run over the ground."

to the sentence

"Fly through the sky."

Now, if you let monkeys randomly type at the keyboard, even if they get a letter right, it has to make sense in the overall picture. In other words ending up with the word 'Ruy' wouldn't be useful because even though its closer to 'Fly' it makes no sense. We can randomly get closer to a different sentence, but because the DNA is already ordered, it has to fit into the larger picture of the order because the creature is dependent on this pre-existing order to live.




I don't know much about (biological) evolution, it is just an idea:

What, if the DNA isn't well put in order and full of more and less senseless rests of former mutations beside the "sense-making sentences"?
The "rests" partly could easely be re-animated per mutation, giving a new chance to collaborate with the given already working sentences!
Maybe, there is a bunch of sentences which are only not providing the current "version" of the species.

There are so many species that survived with very different "features" which are not necessary for their survival.
So, there might be a huge amount of DNA which isn't aquired for survival as well and these are available to "get sense" via variation.


-------
Your "monkey at the piano"-example has the disadvantage that it doesn't take in account that the DNA isn't completely smashed apart by a mutation, but that in relation to the amount of "letters" there are only few "letters" changed within a generation.
The "monkey at piano" might be an example for a radioactive eco-catastrophy.
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Science and Creation - 05/02/06 00:39

Quote:

What, if the DNA isn't well put in order and full of more and less senseless rests of former mutations beside the "sense-making sentences"? The "rests" partly could easely be re-animated per mutation, giving a new chance to collaborate with the given already working sentences! Maybe, there is a bunch of sentences which are only not providing the current "version" of the species.


That is indeed the case. You can have entire regions become active/inactive by switching its marker (junk DNA) or you can have small pieces become inactive if they don't make sense in their context (as is done during the translation process). I referenced the former as evidence for common descent because we share a lot of inactive regions with other mammals.

@Irish_Farmer
Quote:

Now, if you let monkeys randomly type at the keyboard, even if they get a letter right, it has to make sense in the overall picture. In other words ending up with the word 'Ruy' wouldn't be useful because even though its closer to 'Fly' it makes no sense. We can randomly get closer to a different sentence, but because the DNA is already ordered, it has to fit into the larger picture of the order because the creature is dependent on this pre-existing order to live.


You are assuming that the whole genome must be used, that it can not be extended, and may not contain useless data. All three assumptions are invalid as far as the biology behind it is concerned: a large portion is not used, it can be extended, and useless data exists. However, I grant you that the monkey-typewriter example is too simplistic. It's best used as an example of random chance vs. random chance plus optimal selection, e.g. writing one 10-letter phrase per second it would take up to 79,000 years to randomly type "TOBEORNOTTOBE". Using selection on correct letters this is cut down to ca. 90 seconds.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/02/06 06:24

Quote:

That is indeed the case. You can have entire regions become active/inactive by switching its marker (junk DNA) or you can have small pieces become inactive if they don't make sense in their context (as is done during the translation process). I referenced the former as evidence for common descent because we share a lot of inactive regions with other mammals.




These regions are simply what we don't completely understand. Its fruitless to say we'll never find a purpose for non-coding DNA.

Quote:

However, I grant you that the monkey-typewriter example is too simplistic. It's best used as an example of random chance vs. random chance plus optimal selection




Yeah, in that sense its ok. I realized after typing the response, that it was a rather useless response because I really wasn't arguing the same thing, per se. Back to work on my game.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 05/02/06 14:03

Quote:

What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species. I don't know if this was observed so far, but I think it's entirely possible.


Well this is my point exactly, the fact is that we dont see evolution of a new species and this is because evolution is only an educated guess guided by bias.

Quote:

but I think it's entirely possible.


Its entirely possible if evolution is true, but if its not true we will never be able to observe it.

Quote:

What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species


I would be interested if even new types of simple proteins were synthesized, but the only thing happening with mutations today are changes in existing proteins.


Quote:

However, "macro-mutations" leading to speciation are very well observed in nature - in the fossil record. Birds evolved from dinosaurs and mammals evolved from reptiles within some 10 million years. We have enough transient fossils to conclude that we observed most steps of both evolutions.


We certainly do have enough fossils to make a good survey of what existed: we have a sampling of 79% out of all the species represented on the earth, we have literally millions of fossils representing 250,000 species.



Quote:

Birds evolved from dinosaurs


Which dinosaurs? The theropods? Why then were they only found AFTER the archeaopteryx? Or perhaps you were not aware of this fact? Please respond on a case by case basis.

You cannot just come out with a statement that "we have plenty of fossils to prove evolution" and use a talkorigins link and call this a scientific debate. If you are truly objective, you should study the matter intently. If you dont look at thae facts closely then you really must a)admit your bias or b)admit that you have no idea if God created the world or not.


Quote:

However, "macro-mutations" leading to speciation are very well observed in nature - in the fossil record. Birds evolved from dinosaurs and mammals evolved from reptiles within some 10 million years. We have enough transient fossils to conclude that we observed most steps of both evolutions.


This is really just a new way to say "I am biased". There is nothing wrong with being biased as long as you admit it.

Essentially noone on this forum really understands the inner workings of a cell, DNA, proteins or the most intricate biochemistry. However, if you will allow yourself to understand you will realize that NOONE on earth really understands these things fully. The study of cells, microbiology is leading to new areas of excitement in nanotechnology and other fields yet it is largely an open field. So to put stock into science and scientists which claim expertise in these fields is also not a safe, sure foundation.

In the end, if your really objective you have to throw up your hands and say: "I have no idea".

Currently you have to look beyond science to find the answers to metaphysical questions. Its perhaps more relevant to ask ourselves why we have a built in mechanism which questions our origins anyway? Why cant we, like the monkeys, ignore this big question?

I admire atheists and scientists and all free thinkers which are Christian and non-Christian alike. There are too many people who are just satisfied to live life in ignorance...
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/02/06 16:47

On non-coding (junk) DNA. I found a bit of interesting information.

Its comes from the crazies, but it includes references the entire way, so if you don't believe it, you don't have to. Your choice.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/02/06 19:10

Sorry, one more thing. About those cave fish. You said they grew eyes back very quickly, proving that eyes can be evolved relatively fast. Actually those eyes evolved without reproduction, and within a matter of days.

Of course, the eyes were lost during 'evolution', which makes sense, because losing data somehow equates to gaining data.

Anyway, apparently what happened was that what starts the growth of the eye was corrupted, but by adding the lens from an eyed fish of the same species on the surface, the eye grew. Proving that the data for the eye wasn't completely lost, just whatever controls the growth.

These eyes didn't 'evolve' back into the picture, they were always there. But thanks to mutations (or mistakes as one might call them), the fish couldn't grow them.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000728082041.htm
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/02/06 20:44

Sorry, Irish Farmer, I didn't follow the discussion in every single detail and I don't know wether this is the main point of the discussion:

Quote:

Another study showed that DNA contains large areas with unexplained patterns (4). Such patterns could not be the result of random chance as stated by Dr. H. Eugene Stanley (Boston University), "it is almost incredible that the occupant of one site on a gene would somehow influence which nucleotide shows up even 100,000 bases away."




About patterns which are so well organized that they seemed to need created by an intelligence:

Selfreferential systems produce patterns just because they are in some ways closed. Especially, when they get energy from outside, like the earth is getting from the sun. The earth is closed as far as the most of its elements don't escape to outer space.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 05/02/06 22:35

Quote:

Selfreferential systems produce patterns just because they are in some ways closed. Especially, when they get energy from outside, like the earth is getting from the sun. The earth is closed as far as the most of its elements don't escape to outer space.


This is an interesting thought, I dont think I have heard this one before. How do you suppose the sugars and phosphates assemebled together with the correct bases? Even within the earth's atmosphere, how did they assemble to form DNA? Randomly? Then please explain to me how you can find any pattern at all in a series of random events. It should be easily testable and therefore observable.

Pappenheimer,Pappenheimer,Pappenheimer
: Random chance can never create patterns irredgardless of its occurence in open or closed systems It is thouroughly testable, and has never been observed, the only patterns you can create from random events are probablilities for them to occur.

Of course Rosalind Franklin suceeded in crystalizing DNA in the 1950's. From these crystals she was able to bounce x-rays off onto a photographic film. Later on Watson and Crick were given the nobel prize for determining the shape and structure of DNA.



Crick went on to speculate on panspermia because he knew the probability of dna sequences being randomly assembled were impossible.

Only if you live on one of jcl's parallel universes can life be thus generated.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/03/06 05:14

I'm happy that panspermia is coming about, because like snake evolution, this is where scientists with opposing views are going to tear apart each other's theories and expose them both as incompetent. Its only a matter of time; evolution is on its last leg.

Quote:

Selfreferential systems produce patterns just because they are in some ways closed. Especially, when they get energy from outside, like the earth is getting from the sun. The earth is closed as far as the most of its elements don't escape to outer space.




That wasn't really the whole point of the essay. It was just another nail in the coffin.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 05/03/06 12:08

Quote:

This is where the difference in information lies. In order to acheive the anti-oxidant, the order of HDLs has to be lost. Without the prefix of those two examples (the 'targeting of hot spots') the loss of HDLs in favor of anti-oxidants would be considered hugely detrimental. This mutation via loss is only favorable because of the originally written DNA. Besides, you keep focusing on how awesome this mutation is. I won't disagree, its got some pretty good benefits to it, and its true benficiality is going to shine through in the medical field. However, nothing new was written. Order was lost to 'acheive' this ability. No matter how many times mutations like these occur, we will always remain humans.




You keep saying that order or information is lost by mutations. So it's time that we define what is meant by loss or gain of information, otherwise we'll continue to talk at cross-purposes.

The whole information concerning a species is contained in its gene pool. Basically, the information amount is equivalent to the sum of all alleles in the gene pool. Can we agree on that?

Now assume a mutation modified a proteine. The milano mutation affected a gene responsible for the creation of apo A-I proteine, causing the production of a modified form of that proteine, apo A-I(M). This new proteine contains an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group, causing it to pair with another proteine. This proteine pair ceases to produce HDL, but acts as pwerful antioxidant.

So far, so good. We have a new feature (antioxidant) but have lost an old feature (HDL). So we should assume that this mutation is information neutral (it's certainly not an "information loss" - the new proteine has a more complex structure than the old one).

However the old proteine is not lost! Its allele is still in the gene pool. But the allele for the new proteine is added. So the gene pool now contains one additional allele, which means that this mutation has added information.

Evolution knows of several mechanisms to change information in the gene pool. Mutations are either neutral, or add information. They can never remove information. Even if a mutation causes a proteine not to be produced, the allele for that proteine is still in the pool, and if the proteine was useful, it will remain.

Natural selection, on the other hand, is either information neutral, or deletes information. Selection can remove an allele from the gene pool.

Therefore, evolution is always in a state of equilibrium between mutations (added information) and selection (removed information). This equilibrium tends towards a point where the gene pool information remains constant on a local fitness maximum level. At this maximum, the species remains relatively unchanged over a long time period, despite permanent mutations. It can however quickly move towards a different fitness maximum by external influences (f.i. environment changes) or internal influences (f.i. a light sensitive skin cell mutation triggers a sequence of other mutations that were previously neutral, but now eventually lead to the development of eyes).

This is just a little evolution theory to make sure that we talk about the same things regarding loss or gain of information in a species' gene pool. I think the first part is acceptable even for creationists. You might reject the second part - at least until you abandon creationism, as you certainly will when studying biology with an open mind.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 05/03/06 12:25

Quote:

On non-coding (junk) DNA. I found a bit of interesting information.

Its comes from the crazies, but it includes references the entire way, so if you don't believe it, you don't have to. Your choice.




Yes, the content of junk DNA is probably not random. Even if junk DNA has no function in a certain species, it could have had once a function in some predecessor species it evolved from. Some sections of junk DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA.

Junk DNA is considered a powerful evidence of evolution because many junk parts are identical in different species. They don't code anything, but they indicate the grade of evolutionary relationship between species.

- BTW, "panspermia" has earned some place in science fiction stories, but is not a part of evolution theory. Just in case you didn't know.
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Science and Creation - 05/04/06 17:03

Going sideways on the topic a bit, because I don't pretend to know crap all about DNA. I wonder how creationists explain the remains found of other humanoids, or hominids, dated as long as three million years ago. We can't know whether they were also capable of language, since unfortunately brains and throats tend to rot away, but they certainly were upright, human-like creatures.

Were they elves or fairies? No, they don't feature in The Bible. So how do you explain them?

Isn't it also interesting that the biblical account of creation is only about a thousand years or so before people devloped writing? (actually, older writing, as old as 3,500BC, before Mesopotamia's writing, has been discovered, however it is a dead language we cannot read. An example of a more recent dead language we cannot read is the language of the people of Easter Island, who are tracable to the native New Zeland Maori and Hawaians.) I wish no-one could have read the crap that got into the bible, what a lot of trouble it has caused.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 05/04/06 20:22

Quote:

Were they elves or fairies? No, they don't feature in The Bible. So how do you explain them?


Well I cant answer for young earth creationists, but me and fellow gap theorists explain them as a previous civilization wiped out from a previous flood.

I gave the wikipedia entry if your very interested, but briefly stated the model comes from looking at the very fists verses of the very first chapter of Genesis:

VERSE ONE "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth."

BIG GAP OF UNSPECIFIED TIME (accounting for previous races, dinosaurs and more primitive life forms)

VERSE TWO "And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep ..."

The "face of the deep" I highlighted above is an implication of a previous flood. Since we know that God destroyed the earth with a flood during Noah's time, we assume that he might have destroyed a previous civilization with a flood. Perhaps there were more than one previous civilizations. This also explains why the earth is measured to be so old, and why we see mass extinctions(species being drowned) and sudden emergence in the fossil record.

Quote:

(actually, older writing, as old as 3,500BC, before Mesopotamia's writing, has been discovered


Right, I dont specifically what data your using for reference here is, but scholars have placed Adam at 4000 BC so even if the 3500 bc record was correct it would not necessarily contradict biblical creationists.

Quote:

Going sideways on the topic a bit, because I don't pretend to know crap all about DNA.


I think we are all just currently "laymen scientist" in this debate. IM just knowledgeable of somethings because Ive read a lot.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 05/04/06 21:45

Quote:

I wish no-one could have read the crap that got into the bible, what a lot of trouble it has caused.




Same thoughts here.

There is evidence indicating other reasons why certain cultures have been destroyed, certainly not all by a flood. Infact, as far as I know there is no culture that has been destroyed by a flood, mostly it would only mean a decrease of a population and maybe a technological change, if they were hit that bad at all.




"These Aztec translations are controversial. Many have no credible source and there is no proof of their authenticity. Some are based on the pictograph story of Coxcox, but other translations of this pictograph mention nothing of a flood. Most significantly, the time that these myths were heard from the local people was well after missionaries entered the region."




Like in this Aztec example, eventhough many cultures have floods in their myths, I think a lot of it might aswell be traced back to be infact just western interpretations. Does any text referring to 'and he (a south-east asian king in this case) made 40.000 stupas' really mean that the king made 40.000 stupas? There has been no evidence for such a huge amount of structures being build by one king at all.
Texts are full of things that are being exaggerated. I see world wide floods as just another exageration.

Quote:

"Many myths represent the experience of the populace writ large. People who live in regions with large reptiles tell stories of gigantic reptiles. People who live in areas prone to forest fires tell of the fire big enough to destroy the world. People who live near glaciers have myths of when the world was consumed by ice. The prevalence of flood myths needs no explanation except that humans like to live near water and water sources have a tendency to flood periodically."




Religion is a result of fear and living in a relatively hostile environment will cause myths to be told and written down.
Furthermore translational errors, wrong interpretations of pictograms, ignorance of world views that are very different from our current views and plain speculation can as a result pretty much make the Christian flood story be seen everywhere. Something we identify as being a flooded plain on a pictogram, might aswell be something totally different.

Quote:

"Other myths appear amongst many cultures. Numerous cultures recognize creatures that live off of stolen human blood, frequently identified as unnaturally prolonging their lives after death. Nearly every (if not actually every) culture has myths of humans who can change shapes into animals, either at will or under some imposed circumstance. Does the prevelance of these myths indicate that vampires and werewolves actually exist? The average creationist would certainly reject the idea that there are many gods, despite the fact that belief in Pantheons occurs worldwide."




Similar stories, yet different events occured or no event occured? Or one event and a lot of different stories about it? I definately believe most of those stories to be myths and exagerations of what really happened because of the lack of geological evidence supporting for example huge floods (there is zero evidence for a worldwide flood), and I think that eventhough one event would not necessarily mean one story-version of what happened, most stories don't share enough details to beyond any doubt indicate one event at all, let alone the different times and for example prophecies that never came true.

Quote:

One approach to this problem is to state that between the six days of Creation and the Fall of Man and the subsequent initiation of human history there must have been a "gap" in the story of thousands of years, perhaps even tens of thousands or millions of years.




This would mean there should be no human fossils dating older than 4000BC? Then how do you explain humanoids fossils that are older than that? Gap or not, it sounds pretty odd and vague if Adam and Eve were to be the first humans. I'm not going to claim dating methods are perfect and that all those million+ years dates are correct, but our current dating methods are definately reliable past or just past 4000BC. Well we've found a lot of bones and fossils which are older than 4000BC...

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/04/06 22:31

Quote:

You keep saying that order or information is lost by mutations. So it's time that we define what is meant by loss or gain of information, otherwise we'll continue to talk at cross-purposes.




Sounds great.

Quote:

The whole information concerning a species is contained in its gene pool. Basically, the information amount is equivalent to the sum of all alleles in the gene pool. Can we agree on that?




Not quite. The AMOUNT of genetic data isn't what I'm referring to when I talk about order or information. Its the specificity of the data. If I have a chain of 100,000 bases that are the equivelant of DNA nonsense, that's not nearly as worthwhile as a chain of 1000 bases that contains the information for something specific.

For instance. 'Clean the Ford' is more specific than 'Clean the automobile' even though it contains less lettering. Its this specificity that is essential to the process of a germ becoming a person, and its exactly what we never see from a mutation.

Quote:

The milano mutation affected a gene responsible for the creation of apo A-I proteine, causing the production of a modified form of that proteine, apo A-I(M). This new proteine contains an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group, causing it to pair with another proteine. This proteine pair ceases to produce HDL, but acts as pwerful antioxidant.




Not quite. The dimeric proteins (dimers) consist of 70% of the manufactured, mutated proteins. These represent why I say this mutation is a loss of information. Basically these proteins don't do much of anything. They don't produce HDLs, and even with their mutated 'benefit' they can't act as a useful anti-oxidant so they're mutated much like the non-dimers. This 70% proves that these proteins, because of the mutation, have become useless, especially without the pre-built targeting system.

The other 30% don't become dimers, so they're free to act like the old version of the protein and target 'hot spots' with build up. However, now they don't produce HDLs. They act like anti-oxidants, and mop up free radicals, etc. But they mutated to lose specific information, to gain the much less specific information of being an anti-oxidant, and it happened to be beneficial. Great, but it has nothing to do with evolution. At least, if you want me to believe that mutations like these could write a human.

Quote:

o far, so good. We have a new feature (antioxidant) but have lost an old feature (HDL).




Not quite, either. The HDLs are still produced, but the ability to produce them has become so crippled that it hardly works at all.

Quote:

the new proteine has a more complex structure than the old one).




I didn't read anything about its complexity in any of the sources, can you tell me where you're getting this from? Either way, this was a point mutation. Its not like a bunch of nucleotides were inserted and manufactured these much more complex proteins.

In fact, the majority of these proteins tend to bind together and become useless, or less useful. So explain to me how this is more complex? More complex in that they've binded together? That's not very useful, though. In that case, I'll just post this message twice, and then you'll have no reason to disagree with me.

Quote:

However the old proteine is not lost! Its allele is still in the gene pool. But the allele for the new proteine is added.




If a new allele is added, then fine and dandy. It really doesn't matter for evolution. The information in the added allele has to be more specific, not just beneficial, not just 'wasn't there before'. Otherwise mutations are just scrambling DNA to all sorts of effects without writing anything more specific.

Quote:

You might reject the second part - at least until you abandon creationism, as you certainly will when studying biology with an open mind.




I've spent a considerable amount of time studying on my own, and debating with evolutionists, and I've seen nothing yet that adequately brings Creationism into question. You've managed to outsmart my use of words, but not my theory.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 05/04/06 23:22

Quote:

There is evidence indicating other reasons why certain cultures have been destroyed, certainly not all by a flood. Infact, as far as I know there is no culture that has been destroyed by a flood, mostly it would only mean a decrease of a population and maybe a technological change, if they were hit that bad at all.


Right but he wanted to know a Christian explanation so I gave him one. But there are certain evidences which would appear to corroborate floods. Fossils of mass graveyards being one:



Fossils of animals caught in mid-digestion of in other positions indicating a swift death.


Quote:

This would mean there should be no human fossils dating older than 4000BC? Then how do you explain humanoids fossils that are older than that? Gap or not, it sounds pretty odd and vague if Adam and Eve were to be the first humans. I'm not going to claim dating methods are perfect and that all those million+ years dates are correct, but our current dating methods are definately reliable past or just past 4000BC. Well we've found a lot of bones and fossils which are older than 4000BC...


As I stated before, there could have been previous human-like species created before Adam and Eve? Study of the bones would indicate that were more primitive.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/04/06 23:26

Quote:

Yes, the content of junk DNA is probably not random. Even if junk DNA has no function in a certain species, it could have had once a function in some predecessor species it evolved from.




The main problem for evolutionists with 'junk' DNA is that it has been shown to have many purposes.

-Maintenance of the genome structure
-'hidden' genetic variety :: allow different proteins to be made from the same mRNA (along the lines of viral and anti-biotic diversity)
-regulate the speed of translation
-apparently prevent cancer and other diseased (mutations in junk dna caused these problems)

Quote:

Koop and Hood found that the DNA of the T cell receptor complex, a crucial immune system protein, is 71% identical between humans and mice over a stretch of 98-kb of DNA. This was an unexpected finding, as only 6% of the region encodes protein, while the rest consists of introns and non-coding regions around the gene. Does it follow then that we have a recent common ancestor with mice? Since this does not fit in with evolutionary theory, the authors conclude instead that the region must have specific functions that place constraints on the fixation of mutations.




It goes on and on and on, but I don't really have the time, nor do I care right now.

Quote:

Junk DNA is considered a powerful evidence of evolution because many junk parts are identical in different species. They don't code anything, but they indicate the grade of evolutionary relationship between species.




Its great that evolutionists are willing to subject themselves to ignorance, as long as that ignorance is within the 'happy-bounds' of their theory. But like I said, we're finding more and more evidence that non-coding DNA is entirely with purpose. I'm sorry if that makes your gut tighten up, and challenges your long-held beliefs, but you're wrong about this.

Give discovery time.

Quote:

BTW, "panspermia" has earned some place in science fiction stories, but is not a part of evolution theory. Just in case you didn't know.




I know they're seperate camps. That's what makes it so great. Both theories are going to tear each other apart, and in the rubble, anyone who hasn't already put a shield over their eyes will see the inadequacies of both.

Quote:

I wonder how creationists explain the remains found of other humanoids, or hominids, dated as long as three million years ago.




I don't really concern myself with reproductions made from three teeth, and part of a leg bone.

Quote:

I wish no-one could have read the crap that got into the bible, what a lot of trouble it has caused.




I shed a single tear for ignorance.

Quote:

Then how do you explain humanoids fossils that are older than that?




Humanoid and human don't always go hand in hand.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 05/05/06 00:19

Quote:

Fossils of mass graveyards being one:




Well the existence of mass graves themselves doesn't indicate much, it's no evidence for a flood.

Quote:

In the past, scientists have suggested a number of possible explanations for such mass deaths in the fossil record, Sampson says. These include drought, volcanism, fire and botulism poisoning from water tainted by carcasses.




Quote:

Oard, then, gave out other locations of massive grave sites in Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada, in the Dinosaur National Monument in Jenson, Utah, not in Vernal, and the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in Price, Utah. But he neglects on purpose to mentioned about the grave sites being the result of carnosaurs being lured into mud traps at the sound and site of distressed prey after they unwittingly coming into the mud pit for a drink of water, failed attempts to cross rivers at flood stages, and succumbing to a severe drought.


--> about the drought.

When there's no indication of a flood in the geological record, then the above mentioned other options seems more obvious to have happened to me than a flood. Especially drought or the poisoning. Perhaps there are other reasons. Elephants have a tendency to die near a place where lot's of other elephants have died before them. An elephant mass grave could thus also be found, having nothing to do with any catastrophic event but simple deaths.

Quote:

“Nests, eggs, and babies are a challenge to a flood model, but there are enough unknowns associated with the data that solid conclusions are difficult to draw.” or so Oard assumes. There is no unknowns associated with data as Oard claims. Nests, eggs, and babies actually refutes the Flood model. The nests, eggs, and babies would have been easily destroyed if there ever was a Noah's Flood according to the YECs. Oard believes that volcanoes and meteorite impacts, especially the one that was made in the Gulf of Mexico, occurred during the flood. However, there's nothing in the Genesis 7 passage that said anything about meteor showers and volcanic eruptions happening during the Flood. Besides, there are no volcanoes and meteorite craters found in the Middle East, as far as I know.




I agree that mass graves could indicate swift deaths indeed, but like said above certain things that were found still in place as if the creatures all died in a frozen moment make a flood highly unlikely. A flood would destroy any context, mixing up the bones and spreading them across a very large area. The picture like you've shown although mixed up, does not seem mixed up because of a world wide flood, infact I doubt you would even find a mass grave as a result of a flood. (A very small (normal) flood could be possible, then the bones just couldn't be transported any further because of a certain obstacles for example, but further geological evidence must then prove if it really was a flood.)
In the even of a great world wide flood there would be no fossil footprints of dinosaurs don't you think?

Quote:

Humanoid and human don't always go hand in hand.




That's because you don't believe in evolution. Not that it requires any faith at all, the evidence says enough. Besides, why would God make a human version 1 and later on a human version 2. That doesn't make much sense, does it?
Infact why would a God make monkeys that look damn much like us or the other way around? (You know what Darwin suggested.) I guess God must have a good sense of humor,

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/05/06 00:31

Quote:

That's because you don't believe in evolution.




No, argh, you have no common sense. Humanoid and human don't go hand in hand because humanoid refers to a design, shape, whatever. So something with a similar shape to us is humanoid. Apes are humanoid, if you please. Apes certainly aren't human.

Quote:

Besides, why would God make a human version 1 and later on a human version 2.




He didn't. These fossils are subjective. They're either humans with slightly different morphology (like aboriginals), or they're animals.

Or they're a couple of teeth and a shred of leg bone. Hardly what I would call conclusive evidence.

Quote:

Infact why would a God make monkeys that look damn much like us or the other way around?




I don't pretend to understand anything powerful enough to create a universe. But here's maybe a better question. Why does it matter? If evolution doesn't happen, then should I really care that monkeys look like us? Oh no, kangaroos have skin like us. Creationism is shaking in its pants.

Quote:

Well the existence of mass graves themselves doesn't indicate much, it's no evidence for a flood.




And yet, evolutionists see evidence even more subjective than this for other things and its called incontrovertable.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/05/06 01:07

An interesting wrench to throw into the idea of pre-humans, and dating.

In a National Geographic magazine they reference the discovery of fossilized footprints in 3.6 million year old volcanic ash.

Quote:

As I kneel beside the large print and lightly touch its sole, I am filled with quiet awe. It looks perfectly modern. “I thought that at three and a half million years ago their prints might be somehow different from ours,” says Latimer. “But they aren’t. The bipedal adaptation of those hominids was full-blown.”




So in 3.6 million years feet haven't changed at all? But within a shorter time frame they managed to adapt to the more hand-like monkey feet seperate from ours, and ape feet, and the various other monkey feet, and all of the pre-human feet?

Evolutionists say these aren't human footprints though. (Is there anything more apparently biased than finding human footprints and saying, without any evidence, that they aren't human footprints?)

Of course, you can't bring any evidence against evolutionists. They'll just say, "That's just the way it is." There's no arguing with religious cranks, because their magical 'god' can work in mysterious ways.

Anyone with a rational mind can now (assuming the dating methods are correct) say that humans lived 3.6 million years ago. Which solves the problem of pre-humans because that puts us right alongside pretty much all of the extinct pre-humans.

Unless someone wants to argue that, for some reason, pre-humans evolved human feet millions and millions of years before they evolved all the rest of our features (which then throws a wrench into the interpretation of fossils, how didn't they see this coming from the fossil record)? Or perhaps you might want to question whether or not the date is right. Please, do.

I'm glad we finally got that concluded. If you want to check the article:

Gore, R. National Geographic, Feb. 1997, “The First Steps”, pp 72-99.

This is what creationists (like me) mean when we say evolution keeps people ignorant. The obvious fallacy of this conclusion should make it apparent that we can't trust people with such a strong bias to interpret fossils for us. But this is the type of smoke-and-mirrors that evolution is taught through in order to indoctrinate people into it. Its the only way anyone would believe anything so ridiculous.

If you find a print that would pass for a human, you say its a human's. You don't say it can't be a human's just because it doesn't match up with dating methods. Or you would say that your age for humans is off by...oh...let's say millions of years. Much like the age for coelacanths was off by roughly 80 million years. But that just throws a HUGE wrench in the entire idea of even attempting to make an evolutionary timeline. And it certainly throws a giant wrench into the supposed evolutionary lineage of humans.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 05/05/06 01:12

Hahahaha, I've got no common sense? Right, thanks for letting me know. Anyways, yes, off course humanoid indicates a form, shape or whatever and that's exactly what I've meant. (You can turn it around anyway you wish. A gull is a bird, a bird can also be a gull, off course depending a bit on what bird you've spotted.). If it looks 100% exactly the same, also being bipedal and walking straight like us, only certain proportion differences, then infact when it would have been modern bones(no fossils) and they were mixed up, you would not even see the difference and won't doubt it to be human.
You've also simply ripped it out of context. I've said that because of the older human or at least humanoid fossils I doubted that Adam and Eve where the first humans.
It's pretty much obvious to me that those fossil bones are from humans.
But uhm so you dare to call aborinals not human? Boy ow boy, don't go that route. Yes, they have morphological different features, well there you go, evidence that humans can be humanoid, yet have distinctive features aswell.

Quote:

Oh no, kangaroos have skin like us. Creationism is shaking in its pants.




You must have a pretty hairy skin then. Infact, leather manufacturers claim the kangaroos skin is quite unique in a way.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/05/06 03:18

Quote:

But uhm so you dare to call aborinals not human?




No, I just dare say that they're proof that supposedly pre-human characteristics can be found in modern humans that are just as human as us.

The one thing scientists seem to forget in deciding which characteristics are pre-human, and which aren't, is genetic potential.

Quote:

You've also simply ripped it out of context. I've said that because of the older human or at least humanoid fossils I doubted that Adam and Eve where the first humans.




But its really hard to tell from fossils now isn't it. Because according to my aforementioned fossil, humans were around at least 3.6 million years ago. Except, those aren't human foot prints when they don't fit the theory, so we'll just label them whatever fits the theory. Had they been found in rock that we thought was much younger, they wouldn't have hesitated to call them human footprints. How can you ever NOT find proof of evolution, when even disproof is proof? Actually, I'm pretty sure that the dating method is the only incompetent variable in that equation, but dating methods are not to be questioned....because we know the starting ratios even though we weren't there millions of years ago.

Since we're forgetting the error tolerance, humans could even have existed 50+ million years sooner than we can begin to know from fossils alone (let's remember that 'extinct' creatures can escape fossilization for about 100 million years and probably longer). Of course, that line of thinking doesn't fit into evolution, so its not 'scientific'. Its unscientific to think outside the box nowadays.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 05/05/06 03:57

Quote:

The whole information concerning a species is contained in its gene pool. Basically, the information amount is equivalent to the sum of all alleles in the gene pool. Can we agree on that?




Quote:

Not quite. The AMOUNT of genetic data isn't what I'm referring to when I talk about order or information. Its the specificity of the data. If I have a chain of 100,000 bases that are the equivelant of DNA nonsense, that's not nearly as worthwhile as a chain of 1000 bases that contains the information for something specific.




You're confusing the DNA with the gene pool. The gene pool is defined by the alleles existing in a species at a given time. Your 100,000 bases of nonsense have no affect on the gene pool - only the coding DNA parts have.

Quote:

Either way, this was a point mutation. Its not like a bunch of nucleotides were inserted and manufactured these much more complex proteins.




Where did you know that? The original article about the Milano mutation does not determine what sort of mutation it was. Besides, it does not matter for evolution whether a new feature is caused by a point mutation or by inserting a string of nucleotides.

Quote:

In fact, the majority of these proteins tend to bind together and become useless, or less useful. So explain to me how this is more complex? More complex in that they've binded together? That's not very useful, though. In that case, I'll just post this message twice, and then you'll have no reason to disagree with me.




I was referring to the fact that the unpaired proteine gained a new function.

Before the mutation: unpaired proteine that produces HDL.

After the mutation: paired proteine that produces nothing, plus unpaired proteine that produces HDL plus acts as antioxidant.

Seems a clear increase of the complexity to me. In case we can not agree on what complexity is: One definition of complexity of a system is the number of bits required for describing the system's properties.

I have the impression that you see everything deviating from God's plan of a species as 'information loss'. This is however a system of belief and not of science.

Quote:

If a new allele is added, then fine and dandy. It really doesn't matter for evolution. The information in the added allele has to be more specific, not just beneficial, not just 'wasn't there before'. Otherwise mutations are just scrambling DNA to all sorts of effects without writing anything more specific.




A new allele in the gene pool adds a new feature to individuals of a species. That definitely matters for evolution. I fail to see what you mean with 'specific' - what's the difference between a 'specific' allele and a 'not specific' allele?
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science and Creation - 05/05/06 04:19

Quote:

But its really hard to tell from fossils now isn't it. Because according to my aforementioned fossil, humans were around at least 3.6 million years ago. Except, those aren't human foot prints when they don't fit the theory, so we'll just label them whatever fits the theory. Had they been found in rock that we thought was much younger, they wouldn't have hesitated to call them human footprints. How can you ever NOT find proof of evolution, when even disproof is proof? Actually, I'm pretty sure that the dating method is the only incompetent variable in that equation, but dating methods are not to be questioned....because we know the starting ratios even though we weren't there millions of years ago.




I think you got something wrong here.

Humans - if you mean our own species, homo sapiens - exist since 200,000 years and not 3.6 million years. Therefore there can hardly be any human foot prints from millions of years ago. They are from one of our evolutionary predecessors.

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

You were complaining at the same time that a) those foot prints were labeled "whatever fits the theory" and that b) they don't fit the theory. Obviously, a) and b) contradict each other, so you should make up your mind about which mischief to accuse the evil scientists of.

I don't know about those foot prints - but I guess it's probably difficult to assign some foot prints to a certain human predecessor species. They left bones, but no feet. And they all walked upright. So, with a) you could be correct. If the prints are really millions of years old, they were possibly left by homo habilis, an evolutionary predecessor of humans.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/05/06 04:24

I don't have time to respond in full.

I assumed that it was a point mutation because of this statement:

Quote:

one of the protein's amino acids is replaced with an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group




The changing of a single amino acid is more than likely caused by a point mutation. Unless you can tell me of a better mutation to fit the bill. I'd like to know, because that was just my best assumption.

Anyway, the key to why this is a loss of 'information' or specificity I will spotlight tomorrow for you to refute if you want. But I need to sleep for now. Got a big day of work ahead of me tomorrow, and I'm excited about getting back on my RPG too. Development is going better than expected.
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: Science and Creation - 05/05/06 08:11

Sorry for my too short and incomplete posts!

Here is another one: theme: patterns - self-referential system theory versus a higher creating intelligence.

I mentioned self-referential systems because I think that the vital dissension is more one of creation versus neg-entropy theories than one of a creation versus evolution theory.

(Sorry, to keep this post so short, again. The long post that I actually wanted to post is lost after pressing the "continue" button! I'm quite frustrated now, as you can imagine! )
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 05/05/06 13:01

pappenheimer said
Quote:

I mentioned self-referential systems because I think that the vital dissension is more one of creation versus neg-entropy theories than one of a creation versus evolution theory.


Yes I think youve added a new dimension to this argument however I think if you look at self-referential systems you have to ask yourself: "referential to what?" or rather "what is the self?" I would believe that the whole universe is not a closed system but an open system---open to God.

Last time I was applying your patterns with random chance and the emergence of life. This is easily testable with a computer program, you can cause a line direction with a random direction and even with thousands of iterations you will never come up with patterns, only chaos.

jcl said:
Quote:

Seems a clear increase of the complexity to me. In case we can not agree on what complexity is: One definition of complexity of a system is the number of bits required for describing the system's properties.

I have the impression that you see everything deviating from God's plan of a species as 'information loss'. This is however a system of belief and not of science.




It is science when you realize that entropy would resist the build up of complexity. Therefore evolution goes agaisnt the second law of thermodynamics.

It is completely observable among rose breeders looking to produce species wich will bloom for longer periods. Adaptation tends to revert back to its original state.
Posted By: jcl

A personal résumé - 05/05/06 14:26

I'll be away next week and won't post here for a while, but I think this thread has anyway already covered the most common arguments in a discussion between believers and non-believers in creationism. So it's time for a personal summary.

This is what I learned from this thread so far:

- The peppered moth phenomenon was probably caused by a gene shift and not by a mutation. Thus it's not so strong evidence for evolution as I thought before.

- Creatonists don't like to discuss creationism. They definitely prefer to discuss evolution.

- For this reason I still have only a vague idea about a creationist theory, or about whether such a theory exists at all.

- Besides the more funny arguments from some creationist websites (probability, thermodynamics, size of Mississippi delta etc.), the main critics on evolution discussed here was the lack of direct observation of grand scale mutations and macroevolution. Both evolution as well as creationism agree that macro evolution can not be directly observed, but draw different conclusions.

- No non-believer converted to creationism during the discussion, and no creationism believer lost his belief. I guess the only way to change sides in such a conflict is normally by a huge personal paradign shift - triggered, for instance, by studying biology. This is not something that could be achieved by a discussion.

- The initial poll hints that creationists are only a small minority. Is this a sign for the near end of US creationism? Probably not, as this forum is not representative - forum members are from all over the world and and are better than average educated. According to polls, 60% in the US still believe in creationism, and 8% in Germany. Both numbers are decreasing.


Anyway, I'm looking forward to possibly some new arguments in a week from now.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: A personal résumé - 05/05/06 14:50

-And I learned that the most convincing arguments for evolution are the fossils found in aged layered time zones as heavy evidence for gradual evolution.

-Junk dna is kind of an unexplained aspect also which I cannot presently give account for.

-I also learned how ignorant I may be. I need to continue study to develop new information...

-But I appreciate the ability to have such a discussion area for debating, it is a refreshing place to see other peoples idea and solidify my own ideas.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: A personal résumé - 05/05/06 21:59

Quote:

I was referring to the fact that the unpaired proteine gained a new function.




Ok, this is where I need to start then.

First things first. The targeting mechanism of the protein. It takes effect when free radicals cause inflammation in arteries, and so this A-1 (or its variant, A-1 milano) protein is produced to counter this reaction. Simple as that. A hot spot appears, the protein appears.

The usual amino acid was switched with cysteine which has a sulfhydryl group (its important to note the sulfhydryl part). Here's how the original protein worked. It would be produced in reaction to hot spots, to help clear up bad cholesterol. After the mutation, most of the proteins began to bind together, making them essentially useless. The minority of proteins that could still react to the hot spots (or in other words target hot spots) are unable to produce HDLs in high quantities.

However, since this new amino acid changes the proteins structure to act as an anti-oxidant, you say it has a new ability. The protein isn't producing new anti-oxidants. Its not producing anything, it just happens to act as an anti-oxidant because its in the right place at the right time. But the anti-oxidant 'ability' is just a result of its new structure. It has lost specificity, and therefore this mutation is not a 'building up' of human genes. It may or may not be dispersed into the population, and ignoring our modern ways around this, it may become the only allele available, but its still destructive to the human genome (in a small way). The fact that it has positive side-effects doesn't matter to the genome. It doesn't care.

Furthermore, its specific ability to prevent hardening of arteries doesn't even lie with the mutation. It already could target. It can't produce HDLs, but its new structure mops up free radicals. Mopping up free radicals is hardly as specific as producing HDLs (one involves standing in for other molecules by allowing its own electrons to be stolen by free radicals (the protein itself doesn't do this, physics does this, the protein just has to show up), the other involves the actual creation of a particle, or HDL). Being an anti-oxidant is a passive 'abiility'. Producing HDLs is an active ability. Perhaps if the protein manufactured different particles, that might be one thing. But it doesn't. It just sits there and let's natural chemical reactions take over, while not performing any actual role in any process like it used to.

I'll agree that this is something new, its able to mop up free radicals, which it couldn't before. But it had to do this at a loss of information (it didn't lose the amount of information, just the specificity of the information). This doesn't do anything for evolution.

Quote:

After the mutation: paired proteine that produces nothing, plus unpaired proteine that produces HDL plus acts as antioxidant.




Produces HDLs at an extremely dangerously low level.

Quote:

One definition of complexity of a system is the number of bits required for describing the system's properties.




The gene didn't even get more complex according to this definition. One amino acid was exchanged for another. Even trade. However, this just goes to show that you can't just throw any old combination of nucleotides/amino acids together and expect it to work. It has to work in the overall picture, which is why the proteins are usually useless (sulfhydryls like to bond together), and why it lost the actual ability to produce HDLs so that its chemical structure can mop up free radicals. Its an even trade of complexity, but a loss of specificity in favor of a different role.

If that's your definition of complexity, then I don't think it has any bearing on genetics in the context of mutations and evolutionary change. You'd be surprised to see which animals are more complex than us (amphibian lizards for instance) and which animals we're more complex than.

Quote:

I have the impression that you see everything deviating from God's plan of a species as 'information loss'. This is however a system of belief and not of science.




No. While seeing a mutation that could somehow write more specificity into a genome would be damaging to my argument, it still wouldn't convince me that evolution has happened. Because the entire timeframe and scale allowed for evolution is based on huge assumptions (red shift for instance, but we don't have to jump into that right now if you don't want to). And because I know we were created, so it would just mean that I would have to fit creative mutations into the idea of a young earth creation. Moreover, seeing 1 creative mutation out of thousands and thousands of observed losses of specificity/information, would still be unconvincing.

So creative mutations don't offend my spiritual side. They offend my scientific side.

Quote:

A new allele in the gene pool adds a new feature to individuals of a species. That definitely matters for evolution. I fail to see what you mean with 'specific' - what's the difference between a 'specific' allele and a 'not specific' allele?




The way you word it, it does sound pretty ridiculous. However, I hope I cleared it up with my post now, but if you need me to elaborate I can. I don't know how clear I am.

Quote:

Humans - if you mean our own species, homo sapiens - exist since 200,000 years and not 3.6 million years. Therefore there can hardly be any human foot prints from millions of years ago. They are from one of our evolutionary predecessors.




My point exactly. This is a human footprint, out of context no one would have argued the point. The proof of that is that it matches to a 'T' the footprints of modern humans. The only proof that it isn't a human's footprint is that it doesn't line up with the modern theory of evolution. That's your evidence and its circular, and flimsy as a sheet of paper. "We know this fossil wasn't made by a human. Humans aren't 3.6 million years old, which we know because they're only 200,000 years old." How do you know they're only 200,000 years old? "We haven't found any fossil evidence of humans that are older." Uh....what?

Quote:

You were complaining at the same time that a) those foot prints were labeled "whatever fits the theory" and that b) they don't fit the theory. Obviously, a) and b) contradict each other, so you should make up your mind about which mischief to accuse the evil scientists of.




I was trying to cover as many bases as possible to pre-respond to any responses.

However, here's my position and it comes in two flavors.

1). The dating method is wrong. I don't think this footprint IS 3.6 million years old, so I don't really accuse the evidence of saying humans have existed that long. I know the theory that we've only been around for 200,000 years, too, so I don't need links.

2). I accuse scientists of trying to force the evidence to fit their presupposed theory. If you view the equation 5 + X = Y You'll always get the answer right if you assume an answer for X. You can come up with an infinite set of answers, and every one of them will be right as long as you make an assumption.

What's stupid is that scientists are trying to say 5 + 1 = 90. They're denying that X is 1 because they thought X was 85. There's no telling anyone otherwise, because you can't argue with assumptions.

Quote:

I don't know about those foot prints - but I guess it's probably difficult to assign some foot prints to a certain human predecessor species.




Especially when you're looking at modern human footprints. Outside of the dating method, they would have been called human footprints. There's no denying that there is no difference, because the scientists themselves say it. Normally we would assume a human made it, but since we've already made the assumption that humans weren't alive at that time, it has to be something else. No evidence, it just has to fit the assumption. This is most of what evolution is based on.

Quote:

If the prints are really millions of years old, they were possibly left by homo habilis, an evolutionary predecessor of humans.




Yeah, it just sucks that H. Habilis wasn't even around when these prints were made. If only several hundreds of thousands of years can produce such a variety of feet, why didn't millions of years do it? This is a huge problem with your theory, and can't be answered. Why would these ape-men be walking around with ape-features, and human feet? It doesn't even begin to make sense.

Quote:

If the prints are really millions of years old




Ah! Now you're willing to admit that the dating methods are fallible?

Quote:

Creatonists don't like to discuss creationism. They definitely prefer to discuss evolution.




True. But only because it invariable leads into messy arguments about dating methods and red shift, which are hard to argue with someone. Its easier to kick the foundation out of evolution first, because then its easier for people to accept that maybe the earth isn't billions of years old.

Quote:

For this reason I still have only a vague idea about a creationist theory, or about whether such a theory exists at all.




Its not that I'm avoiding talking about it. But it would be pointless to talk about it if you still believe evolution explains life. Most of my theory is poo-pooed by modern scientific theories (the ones that are heavily steeped in assumptions).

However, you always make very bold claims about how stars (which are apparently billions of lightyears away) disprove a young earth.

I just have a quick point to bring up about that. Forgetting the shaky argument about how old stars can be explained by time being different depending on where you are, etc.

In a math class, imagine if you were given this question.

You're standing at point A. Two objects (X and Y) are moving away from A. X is travelling 10 feet per second, and Y is travelling 30 feet per second. How far away are X and Y?

What would you do? You would walk up to your math teacher and slap him in the face! Determining distance by speed alone is futile. Unless of course you're allowed to make several assumptions.

If you assume a time that the two objects passed you can get a correct answer. Of course, even if you change this assumption, you'll still get a correct answer. The two answers are 'correct', but the two answers are different. This is because the assumption is a variable, and has no real verifiable proof.

Here's the equation for determining astronomical velocity (or in this case, distance).

V = H D

If you have two of the three values, of course, you can determine the third value.

V is velocity, H is hubble's constant and D is the distance.

Quote:

In 1929, Hubble estimated the value of the expansion factor, now called the Hubble constant, to be about 500 km/sec/Mpc. Today the value is still rather uncertain, but is generally believed to be in the range of 45-90 km/sec/Mpc.




http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/hubbles_law.htm

Note the word estimate. In other words, your completely accurate distances are based on an estimation of even more assumptions. In fact, notice also that this estimation has been allowed to change from 500 km/sec/Mpc to 45-90. Its obviously not based on extremely accurate findings, otherwise the value wouldn't change so much. Sure, a lot of constants change (speed of light, pi), but they always remain relatively similar. Even early man had pi at about 3. But a change of that proportion (seen in the differences of Hubble's constant) is an indicator of the inaccuracy of the estimation.

Furthermore, the main reason that this value was dropped so low is because they were starting to find stars that were older than the universe! So you can change 'constants', so long as it helps fit your assumptions, once again. In that case I can just change the concept to fit my young earth theory, and we've suddenly the stars aren't so far away. The problem with this smaller value of H is that it puts the origin of stars on the spot with the origin of the universe, which isn't possible with the Big Bang because stars had to 'evolve'. So who knows, maybe the constant will be lowered again if it helps prove the theory.

We think we can determine the true color of a star (even if its red shifted) based on stars that we use as references, which is unverified (possibly unverifiable). We determine the distances to these stars without knowing the true effects on the light. Another assumption.

With so many assumptions, how can you ever not find the evidence you're looking for? I'm sure if Creationists made our own assumptions, we would come up with completely different answers.

Quote:

The Universe Shows Its Age

A cosmic embarrassment is fading. By some new measure, the oldest stars no longer appear to be older than the universe as a whole.

Four years ago, a nagging problem in cosmology looked set to erupt into a full-scale crisis. A team of astronomers led by Wendy Freedman of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, published a long-awaited measurement of the universe's expansion rate, determined by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of pulsating stars in a far-off cluster of galaxies. The result unnerved astronomers. The measured expansion rate was so fast that it implied that the universe has been slowing down for a mere 8 billion years since the big bang. Some earlier measurements of cosmic expansion had already pointed to worrisome young ages for the universe, but this made it billions of years younger than its oldest stars appeared to be.
The crisis intensified the next year, when Craig Hogan of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Michael Bolte of the Lick Observatory in Santa Cruz, California, published a careful study of old stars called globular clusters, which reconfirmed earlier age estimates of about 16 billion years. The universe, it seemed, was just half the age of its oldest inhabitants. Something appeared to be drastically wrong with the observations, or with cosmologists' basic picture of the universe.




Science, 13 February 1998, "The Universe Shows Its Age", page 981

Look at the diction in this article. It goes to show how scared you people get when the evidence doesn't line up with your assumptions. I wonder what that kind of internal crisis might prompt someone to do. Like say, use inconclusive evidence (its not a human if we assume it isn't), or not let people know that their supposedly accurate measurements are based on assumptions. Its not lying if you're just not telling the whole truth, right?

Certain variables in the equation have to be adjusted when the equation doesn't line up with the current theory.

So 100 different methods or not, they're based on fallible assumptions. I don't think the stars we see in the sky are really as far away as we thought.

The Big Bang still has a Big Problem. We haven't found all of the matter the theory has predicted (hardly even part of it). So if the theory that is the basis of these distances is questionable, so are the distances.

Dark matter/dark energy is another example of a magical miracle your god of naturalism has produced. Or in other words, widely accepted nonsense that is convenient because it fills in the gaping wounds of your theory. There's no evidence for either of these 'things' except that they must exist until a better answer is found.

This is the crank science that's passing for 'enlightenment' nowadays.

I'm done, now.

I'll wait for a response to elaborate on that. I don't want to force things.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: A personal résumé - 05/06/06 02:52

I should say, my biggest lesson in all of this is how flawed creationist arguments can be. Its pretty frustrating.

Probably the biggest benefit has been in getting a better idea of the viewpoint of evolutionists. Its been extremely helpful, and will serve me well in the future.

Every other debate I've ever had has been with people who could only parrot tried and true proof of evolution, but couldn't explain the basis for these proofs. Mostly because they didn't understand. Kind of like someone who has strong political beliefs, but doesn't really know why. You guys (some of you), on the other hand, have real reasons for believing in evolution, and you understand the concepts. Its been a real test, but its also been a good experience in figuring out how to look at evolution from a different perspective.

My understanding of evolution and creation, and the concepts contained therein have never been as solid since I've started this debate. At first I was kind of wondering (perhaps worried) that going through college might change my beliefs. But I'm confident that my beliefs have been toned rock hard by now. That's not to say I'm not going to listen to what my professor has to say, but now I know what kind of inconsistencies to look for. Whereas before, my beliefs were based on my ability to parrot simplistic creationist arguments, now they're based on a much more full understanding of the controversy. I'm looking forward to college, and maybe even using that as a start to 'test the establishment.' Should be interesting.

Thanks, guys. Its been fun, and I hope we can continue.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: A personal résumé - 05/06/06 23:39

Not that I feel that it really makes a difference to post this, but I've learned that most creationists are amazingly stubborn and take every chance of changing the facts a bit to fit their view or at least their interpretation of things is different because of their original view, that alone will make it hard to impossible to even change their view at all. Admitting or believing that creation has not happened the way the bible said, would mean the bible can't be used anymore as a solid 'evidence' or simply as the basis of their religion anymore. It would be flawed too much. Needless to say that I already strongly doubt the truth-value of a more literal interpretation of the texts. (Also remember, what's in the bible now, is a selection of texts, so it can't be original at all, let alone the influence of all the translations and reproductions. Just think about the different meanings certain Hebrew words supposedly can have and what kind of impact that can have on the meaning of the text. Especially when interpretating them literally.)

-Being critical and sceptical about established scientific views is very good, but when it interferes with your view, rather than with the facts, then holding on to your own view is pretty much a strange thing to do, when you ask me. That's something I've noticed, eventhough like I've explained above I think to know why this happens.

-Furthermore eventhough maybe not always, but they accuse evolutionists a lot of being 'unscientific, basing things off our imagination'. That's very amusing when you think about their creationist theory, the only real touchable indication you have is a text. No offense, but that's rather weak. We scientists would not get away with it, and yes you are right astrology is not as exact as one might think. We all know that and other sciences have there 'flaws'.
Btw, what exactly did we make up then? Estimations for example are usually thoughts about certain variables based upon reliable data mixed with some unreliable data, that's still better than just making some figures up and throw it all in a mixer.
Creationists tend to skip a lot of scientific explanations as having any chance at all of being true, simply because they are scientific, at least that's my impression, maybe not a fact, but still.
Junk dna for example is not unexplained, at least not from the scientific perspective, but maybe unexplained from the creationist's perspective was what was meant anyway.

-Arguments like 'the dating method is wrong' are signs to me that creationists either don't know much about them, or wouldn't believe them if they were correct and true anyway. Fallout is something you can meassure, any calculations with them do have a meaning, and the calculations themself will only become more and more accurate the more we get to know about it and the factors that influence it all. Eventhough no scientist likes to do it, we are infact open enough to admit errors. The ´assumptions´ you are questioning aren´t based on nothing, scientific theories require to be based on solid things. I´m not going to claim every theory to be 100% solid and proven. This isn´t even relevant in a way, like said in this thread before, theories can be falsified, not proven, but they can be made assumable with enough evidence to support the theory in question. As for your theory, where´s your proof and solid base?? Yes, so your theory isn't scientific, but it still requires more than just faith to be acceptable, let alone proven. And that's not just my opinion, but also pure common sense. Why believe in something when there is absolutely no evidence at all in favor of it?

As always, think of this what you like, that's your right off course. I would be interested to know 'the more exact details about the creation theory', I might be asking for the impossible, but I want to hear more than just 'God created it, and God works in mysterious ways' I guess. Sorry for that. I only believe apples can fall out of the sky if I a). can see them fall or b). it would make sense to conclude that an apple has infact fallen out of the sky, because of the position in for example the tree it was the day before and the location where is it now, being down on the floor.
The evolution theory is a b)-kind of option, because the a). is impossible or possibly impossible to witness.

Anyways, I'm enjoying this debate too and it's been great to read what other people think. But I do think that this debate will go on forever, only untill one of the theories gets falsified...

Cheers
Posted By: jcl

Re: A personal résumé - 05/07/06 04:24

Quote:

Dark matter/dark energy is another example of a magical miracle your god of naturalism has produced. Or in other words, widely accepted nonsense that is convenient because it fills in the gaping wounds of your theory. There's no evidence for either of these 'things' except that they must exist until a better answer is found.

This is the crank science that's passing for 'enlightenment' nowadays.




This was a very interesting post. It sheds some light on why even some intelligent people - which I assume for you - still believe in creationism in the twenty-first century.

You don't have a problem with evolution. You have a problem with science. And the problem you have is that science is not a dogma.

You didn't get the Hubble effect and some other things 100% correct, but the basic point that you've got is that science often leads to a change of knowledge. 600 years ago, science told everyone that the earth was unmoving at the center of the universe; then suddenly they said "It's moving around the sun". Hubble measured his constant at 500 km/s/Mpc; today we know that it's in the range of 70 km/s/Mpc, and is not even a constant but changes over time. And indeed, we also know that the visible matter in the universe does not explain the rotation speed of galaxies. Only 4% of the universe consists of baryonic matter, 23% is dark matter and 73% dark energy. And those percentages might even change.

There is a lot in nature that science does not yet know, or does not yet understand. On my website I've listed the 10 greatest mysteries of science; but in fact there are much more than 10. I suppose that there's still a total of more than 200 unanswered basic questions and unsolved mysteries today in all areas of science.

While this is fascinating for some people, others are scared. If science does not offer certainty, where do I find certainty at all? In religion? In superstition?

This is obviously one of the reasons for the phenomena of creationism and science rejection in some parts of the US population. I think it's also a reason for the lack of a "creationism theory", aside from the apparent difficulty to sell a belief system as a scientific theory. For delevoping a theory, you had to apply the very scientific methods that you reject.

The only problem is that neither creationism, nor religion is the safe haven that you're looking for.

Religion also changes. Christianity today is very different to Christianity in 1000 AC. And creationism, if it wants to survive, can't remain unchanged either. It has two choices in the long run: either further isolation, or further adaption to its arch enemy, science. The latter was the creationism strategy so far in its attempt to enter the US education system; this failed. Maybe its isolation now. Indications for this are that creationists do little or no research, don't publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals, don't even want to discuss creationism with non-believers, and are mostly occupied with putting up websites and papers that are only taken seriously by other creationists. Whatever the future will bring for creationism - it does not look bright.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: A personal résumé - 05/07/06 22:23

Quote:

Not that I feel that it really makes a difference to post this, but I've learned that most creationists are amazingly stubborn and take every chance of changing the facts a bit to fit their view or at least their interpretation of things is different because of their original view, that alone will make it hard to impossible to even change their view at all.




Creationists would say the same things about evolutionists. I feel its more important to focus on the science (argue the evidence) than worry about the motives and intents of anyone else. I mean, what are you some kind of conspiracy theorist?! Just kiddding.

Quote:

because of their original view, that alone will make it hard to impossible to even change their view at all.




Evolutionists must have evolved a resistance to this natural human tendancy then. Do you really claim that you're invincible to this sort of reasoning? You're a human just like everyone else, believe it or not. However, this does help put a spotlight on the arrogance of evolutionists in thinking that their way of thinking is the standard for everyone else. Imagine if christians did that? Actually they have, and we get bashed for it to this day, but its ok if its not christians doing it.

I'm not going to respond to anything else you said, Phemox, because its irrelevant. I'd rather stay focused on the 'science' of your naturalistic faith.

Quote:

(Also remember, what's in the bible now, is a selection of texts, so it can't be original at all, let alone the influence of all the translations and reproductions.




Those other excluded texts were often excluded for good reason. If something is written by an agnostic (and so on), why would we include it? Its couter-point to everything the bible teaches. You're just parroting long-refuted atheist arguments against the bible. Of course, I parrot a lot of creationist ideas, but at least I take the time to understand them and elaborate on them when I'm questioned.


Before I continue, I want to point out once again that it appears the resevoir of evidence for evolution has dried up. That's two posts, one from someone who I consider to have more-than-average intelligence, that did nothing except tell me that I can't be believed because my faith doesn't make sense, and that I'm scared etc.

Its pretty easy to see that this argument has degenerated into this.

But that's besides the point. I'll just make a quick point to the rest of the responses before I have to run off to band practice.

Quote:

You don't have a problem with evolution. You have a problem with science. And the problem you have is that science is not a dogma.




What's your evidence of this? I've never had any problem using logic, science, common sense to refute evolution. Until now you've had no problem using those same tools to defend evolution.

Quote:

You didn't get the Hubble effect and some other things 100% correct, but the basic point that you've got is that science often leads to a change of knowledge.




No, I've pointed out the difference between scientific change, and outright guessing based on assumptions. In my equation example, the assumption of when the two objects passed by is parallel to the big bang. We assume it happened (despite lack of evidence) and then suddenly we can start coming up with all sorts of distances for celestial objects. The stars aren't really that far away.

Quote:

600 years ago, science told everyone that the earth was unmoving at the center of the universe; then suddenly they said "It's moving around the sun". Hubble measured his constant at 500 km/s/Mpc; today we know that it's in the range of 70 km/s/Mpc,




These are two completely unrelated events. The Hubble 'constant' was changed because the value we had led to us finding wrong ages for stars. Of course, that's easy to fix when your evidence is based on assumptions anyway. All you have to do is find a way to change the assumption.

Quote:

and is not even a constant but changes over time.




Yeah, objects are decelerating. But if they were decelerating at the rate that gave us those two values within such a short range of time then all objects in space would be moving 'backwards' for quite some time now.

Quote:

And indeed, we also know that the visible matter in the universe does not explain the rotation speed of galaxies.




It doesn't explain it because you're assuming your theory is true. Maybe the fact that the physical universe (reality) doesn't match up with your theory is due to the fact that your theory is wrong.

Quote:

Only 4% of the universe consists of baryonic matter, 23% is dark matter and 73% dark energy. And those percentages might even change.




So here's your answer to that. Space magic!

I've researched scientific information on dark matter. The only proof I read for it is that it fills in the gaps left by the big bang. That's circular reasoning. It exists because of big bang. Its also caused by the big bang. Once again, did you ever just assume the theory is wrong?

Quote:

While this is fascinating for some people, others are scared.




Please, let's keep the amount of assumption-based theories I have to argue down to a minimum. I'm only one man.

Quote:

If science does not offer certainty, where do I find certainty at all? In religion? In superstition?




Religion? No. Superstition? Certainly not. Both of these things are man-made inventions. I won't argue whether or not its good to go to church, but you're missing the point. The only thing we can really be sure of is God. Traditions, imagination, stories are all irrelevant.

Quote:

This is obviously one of the reasons for the phenomena of creationism and science rejection in some parts of the US population.




I'm going to respond to this by accusing evolution as being born from the simple rejection of God. Of course, if I stereotype all evolutionists this way, does that make me more right, and you wrong? For being the frightened one based on irrational logic, at least I've stuck to scientific explanations. I may have slipped up and name-called people a few times, but those were mistakes. In general, I've avoided questioning your character, motives, etc. If your belief is the universal standard for intelligence, correctness, enlightenment, and logic, why are you doing this to me and my compatriats?

Is it possible that you're running out of ways to defend your theory? I don't want to be accusatory, but I can't think of any other explanation for people saying what they say.

This is pretty typical of my discussions with evolutionists. By about this point, it degenerates into name-calling. They'll bring up religion, question my motives, or sometimes my character. Its fairly amusing...

Quote:

I think it's also a reason for the lack of a "creationism theory"




You name the theory and then say there is no theory? Our theory is a theory, its just contrary to yours so its "Those peoples' theory." Evolution says that the variety of animals we see popped up out of non-living chemicals and evolved accidentally writing all of the well-formed creatures we see today.

Creation says that there were several created 'kinds' of animals. They speciated, gene shifted, some species or even entire kinds went extinct, and we're left with what we have today. The word 'kind' is a biblical word, but it applies to those of us who believe in creation without the biblical God. He had to start somewhere.

The proof is in Darwin's finches, in horses and zebras, in lions and tigers, and in other natural observations of rapid speciation and hybridization. Our theory exists, it makes predictions, and its proven true by observations of these predictions.

We deal with the same evidence, our conclusion/theory, is just different from yours. Why should I bore you by outlining what creation believes? Why shift the argument away from evolution? It is, after all, based on the beliefs of infallible humans, and is the standard for all scientific knowledge and truth. So why get sidetracked on 'crazy theories' like mine?

Quote:

aside from the apparent difficulty to sell a belief system as a scientific theory.




When we find evidence that genetics can not be changed very far beyond their original programming, that's evidence of creation. Not a belief system. Since we first discovered genetics, this has been the only possible conclusion we can make. You guys deny it based on your faith, that's fine.

Quote:

For delevoping a theory, you had to apply the very scientific methods that you reject.




You mean things like ignoring reality, making assumptions, and ignoring evidence? Doesn't sound like the scientific method to me.

Quote:

Christianity today is very different to Christianity in 1000 AC.




How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.

Quote:

And creationism, if it wants to survive, can't remain unchanged either.




So change is the reason why Christians beliefs are fallible? But change is the only thing that can save Creationists? Hm. The way I see it, as more and more people are starting to realize that random scrambling of the genetic code cannot write new creatures, and the other impossibilities of evolution (like the evolution of sex, the evolution of mammary glands, the evolution of scales into feathers (two structures that have nothing in common), etc), combined with constantly being tossed back and forth by scientists (archaeopteryx is a transition, oops it turns out birds came first, piltdown man, finding an early bone of man only to discover that its a pig's tooth, finding a new early man only to find out its made of parts of other early men, etc) people are probably just going to continue becoming more skeptical. Can you really blame them? The evidence for creation has always been here. On the other hand, your evidence comes and goes like the wind.

Quote:

and are mostly occupied with putting up websites and papers




Evolutionists are more notorious for doing this than creationists. When I do research on any given subject, I'll find at least five times more evolutionist sites than creationist (usually more).

Not surprisingly, the first sentence on each page is usually some recombination of, "Creationists use their junk science to refute evolution." Each page is using an attack on creationist motives, while creationists tend to use science. Is it possible that this widespread use of bullying, and intimidation are a reflection of the increasing impossibility of defending evolution? Why go the hard route of defending evolution, when you can just attack anyone who goes on the offensive?

Anyway, I'd list off creation scientists, but I doubt that even if I did name past and present creation scientists who make real scientific contributions, and do peer-reviewed work would really change your mind.
Posted By: NITRO777

evolution vs creation - 05/08/06 00:53

@jcl
Quote:

There is a lot in nature that science does not yet know, or does not yet understand. On my website I've listed the 10 greatest mysteries of science; but in fact there are much more than 10. I suppose that there's still a total of more than 200 unanswered basic questions and unsolved mysteries today in all areas of science.




And if you made it possible for English speaking people to actually read your website perhaps people could see these things with our own eyes. I would like to be able to read your site.(Just for enjoyment, not to debate)


@My new creationist ally(Irish_Farmer)
Quote:

Anyway, I'd list off creation scientists, but I doubt that even if I did name past and present creation scientists who make real scientific contributions, and do peer-reviewed work would really change your mind.



;

a group
some more nice guys

And stuff for you to do between band practice:
Creation Wiki

Note that evolutionists ARENT allowed to help with the wiki, so jcl and Phemox must not make any attempts. Those contributing to Creation Wiki must accept creationism a priori.

@Phemox
Explain this one buddy. Is this the darwin fish?Umm no just more proof of great catastrophic flood type events: This poor fish didnt even get a chance to finish lunch before he suddenly died.




Quote:

most creationists are amazingly stubborn and take every chance of changing the facts a bit to fit their view or at least their interpretation of things is different because of their original view,


My mind is open as much as I can open it. I admit my bias, and i will try not to let my bias effect my intellectual judgement.

Quote:

Admitting or believing that creation has not happened the way the bible said, would mean the bible can't be used anymore as a solid 'evidence' or simply as the basis of their religion anymore. It would be flawed too much. Needless to say that I already strongly doubt the truth-value of a more literal interpretation of the texts. (Also remember, what's in the bible now, is a selection of texts, so it can't be original at all, let alone the influence of all the translations and reproductions. Just think about the different meanings certain Hebrew words supposedly can have and what kind of impact that can have on the meaning of the text. Especially when interpretating them literally.)


The bible actually has amazing synergy considering its authorship by scores of authors, scattered in different locations at different time periods. Especially interesting are the prophecies in which the crucifiction and crucifiction related events were accurately predicted hundreds and even thousands of years before the event actually happened.


Quote:

Admitting or believing that creation has not happened the way the bible said, would mean the bible can't be used anymore as a solid 'evidence' or simply as the basis of their religion anymore.


Who admitted such a thing, certainly not me? Im not sure what you mean here. If anybody admitted to such a thing I will send them a very nasty email

Quote:

Also remember, what's in the bible now, is a selection of texts, so it can't be original at all, let alone the influence of all the translations and reproductions. Just think about the different meanings certain Hebrew words supposedly can have and what kind of impact that can have on the meaning of the text. Especially when interpretating them literally.


As a amatuer student of the original Greek and Hebrew texts I would love to show you the meanings of certain Hebrew words and the effects they have on interpreting biblical meaning, especially as they relate to the original creation events.However, since you already speak three languages fluently (that I know of) dont you think Hebrew and Greek might unnessesarily complicate your life?

Quote:

-Being critical and sceptical about established scientific views is very good, but when it interferes with your view, rather than with the facts, then holding on to your own view is pretty much a strange thing to do, when you ask me. That's something I've noticed, eventhough like I've explained above I think to know why this happens.


Im open to the possibility of evolution, I just need to understand it on the molecular level. I am the type that needs to know things from the inside out. For example, anybody who could tell me spoecifically how histones evolved would have my rapt attention. Since I know that modern science doesnt know much about histones at all, let alone how they evolved, I tend to doubt I'll ever know the truth. Before I give up my strong belief in God however I need to be very very convinced of the evidence that proves evolution. I have a hard time believing that science will ever know enough about HOW evolution works to tell me therefore it is very doubtful that I will ever release my opinions about God. However I am still reading, every day, opinions from both sides. Much better than people who just believe everything in high school and then forget, dont you think?

Quote:

As always, think of this what you like, that's your right off course. I would be interested to know 'the more exact details about the creation theory', I might be asking for the impossible, but I want to hear more than just 'God created it, and God works in mysterious ways' I guess


I understand, Ill try to come up with something you havent heard before, something a little more scientific.

How about the ID(Intelligent Design) stance:

Quote:

if an object is complex, has a purpose and has no plausible physical cause, it implies design.




Some issues around America
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: A personal résumé - 05/08/06 01:12

Quote:

Why believe in something when there is absolutely no evidence at all in favor of it?


Phemox a dichotomy exists(whether anyone likes to admit it or not).

The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.

While most people like to claim that there is no dichotomy, and that it is a logical flaw, I challenge anyone on this forum to come up with a origination scenario(of living species) which I cannot reduce down to either one of two fundamental processes 1)creation or 2)evolution
Posted By: jcl

Re: A personal résumé - 05/08/06 08:00

Quote:

You name the theory and then say there is no theory? Our theory is a theory, its just contrary to yours so its "Those peoples' theory." Evolution says that the variety of animals we see popped up out of non-living chemicals and evolved accidentally writing all of the well-formed creatures we see today.




Don't get me wrong: What I've posted was my personal opinion of the reasons and motivations of creationism. It was not meant as an argument against creationism. It's clear that you as a creationist have a different opinion.

For argumenting against a "creationism theory" I'd need to know that theory first. I didn't find it on any creationist website, therefore my suspicion that such a theory does not exist at all.

I'm definitely interested - also in looking for some more stuff for my website - in finally learning about the creationism theory. But a little more than the few commonplaces that you've posted. Sure, I already knew that creationists believe that species were supernaturally created. But if that's all, it's not a theory - that's still superstition. For developing a theory you'll need a consistent model about how and when this creation should have happened, and how it can be verified or falsified in observations, and how it fits into the theory system of science: mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.

BTW - please don't take my remarks about superstition as an insult. I make a distinction between religion (= belief in a higher being and/or a higher meaning of existence) and superstition (= belief in supernatural forces, like witchcraft, miracles, or spirits). Religion is consistent with science, superstition isn't. According to the above definition, creationism is not a religion, but a superstition (its based on miracles, i.e. supernatural events). But again, that's meant in a neutral way and not for offending creationists, and I accept of course that your opinion is different here.

From your remarks about Dark Matter and the Hubble Constant I see that you know less about astronomy than I thought before. You have some very wrong ideas of physics, and of the meaning of scientific theories in general. I don't have the time now, but when I'm back next week I'll post a specific answer to that topic, including a brief introduction in astronomy.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/08/06 08:17

Quote:

And if you made it possible for English speaking people to actually read your website perhaps people could see these things with our own eyes. I would like to be able to read your site.(Just for enjoyment, not to debate)




I've considered to transfer all the stuff to English, but this is really a lot of work (370 pages of text) - so I guess there won't be an English version very soon. The 10 Great Questions I was referring to are: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Higgs-Boson, CP Violation, Neutrino Mass, Proton Decay, Quantum Computers, Extraterrestrials, Immortality, and Consciousness.

Quote:

The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.




I'm afraid what I'm saying now is another proof of the evilness of science for you. But anyway: No, when evolution were disproved by some observation one day, I am very, very sure that science would still not believe in creation. Instead, they would come up either with a modified evolution theory that explains the observation, or with a totally different theory. That would not be creationism.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/08/06 12:17

Quote:

I'm afraid what I'm saying now is another proof of the evilness of science for you. But anyway: No, when evolution were disproved by some observation one day, I am very, very sure that science would still not believe in creation. Instead, they would come up either with a modified evolution theory that explains the observation, or with a totally different theory.


Im not sure you understand the conundrum, if you came up with a "modified system of evolution" you would still have a form of evolution. My scenario proves the very definition of evolution false for the explanation of the emergence current biodiversity.

Noone denys evolution as it is defined among most scientists, this would be the definitive meaning of evolution. I dont want to have to teach you your own theory, but here is the DEFINITIVE definition of evolution. And by this definition you cannot just conveniently make up new "modified forms of evolution".Evolution is evolution.

Stunning paper by Dr Larry Moran--or is it Larry Moron??

We can easily prove that evolution is not responsible for the presence of today's biodiversity.

Quote:

I'm afraid what I'm saying now is another proof of the evilness of science for you.





Science and religion are certainly different things, but they are not opposites,and they are certainly not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

What is evil is that scientists prejudice leads them to deny hearing anyone who disagrees with evolution, which is an example of intellectual totalitarianism".




Science can be the new oppression in our world.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/08/06 12:51

Heres yet more information of fossil graveyards:
Quote:

Twenty-five therapod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals. There is no evidence of the several million year evolutionary gap or of the iridium boundary that is thought to delineate when the dinosaurs became extinct. "The Gobi Desert of Central Asia is one of the earth&#8217;s desolate places. Yet the Gobi is a paradise for paleontologists. ...Our expeditions, jointly sponsored by the Mongolian Academy of Sciences and the American Museum of Natural History, have excavated dinosaurs, lizards and small mammals in an unprecedented state of preservation. Freshly exposed skeletons sometimes look more like the recent remains of a carcass than like an 80-million-year-old fossil. In yet another ironic twist, the rocks of the Gobi appear to be missing precisely those strata that currently hold the greatest public interest: no sections found thus far include the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary, when the dinosaurs became extinct. Whatever cataclysm wiped out the dinosaurs (and many other species then on the earth), its mark on Central Asia seems to have been erased." (Novacek, Michael J., Mark Norell, Malcolm C. McKenna, and James Clark, "Fossils of the Flaming Cliffs," Scientific American, vol. 271, 1994, pp. 60-69, as cited in Morris, 1997.)

Nor is the Gobi unique. Joe Taylor is perhaps the world&#8217;s premiere creator of fossil casts for museums and universities. In his fascinating book, Fossils, Facts, and Fantasies, he analyzes several of these sites around the world. In the United States one finds a profusion of skeletons in a hillside dinosaur graveyard in New Mexico, in the famous Bone Cabin Quarry of Wyoming, and at other sites. In Alberta, Canada there is a huge graveyard that stretches for many miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones. In Agate Springs, Nebraska a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals was found buried in alluvial deposits. The remains of hundreds of rhinos, three-toed horses, camels, giant wild boars, birds, plants, trees, sea shells and fish are mixed and intermingled in great confusion. In Tanzania, Belgium and Mongolia similar massive catastrophes captured vast populations and trapped them in a fossil graveyard of sediments and debris.

One of the most fascinating fossil graveyard of all is located in the southern United States. The Ashley Beds is an enormous phosphate graveyard that contains mixed remains of man with land and sea animals, notably dinosaurs, pleisosaurs, whales, sharks, rhinos, horses, mastodons, mammoths, porpoises, elephants, deer, pigs, dogs, and sheep. This catalogue of fossils from the phosphate beds was given in the records of Major Edward Willis who displayed them at multiple expositions (Willis, "Fossils and Phosphate Specimens," 1881.) Professor F.S. Holmes (paleontologist and curator of the College of Charleston&#8217;s Natural History Museum) described the fossil graveyard in a report to the Academy of Natural Sciences: "Remains of the hog, the horse and other animals of recent date, together with human bones mingled with the bones of the mastodon and extinct gigantic lizards." There can be little doubt what extinct gigantic lizard he referenced for he pictured a hadrosaurus on the front of his 1870 book The Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and captioned it: "Skeleton of a Fossil Lizard eighteen feet in Length." Moreover, on page 31 he wrote, "It was in this Post-Pleiocene age, the period when the American Elephant, or Mammoth, the Mastodon, Rhinoceros, Megathereum, Hadrosaurus, and other gigantic quadrupeds roamed the Carolina forests, and repaired periodically to these Salt-lakes"... (p. 31.) The mixing of these remains was pell-mell throughout the roughly 40 square mile area of this deposit around Charleston, South Carolina. By one estimate, bones made up 65% of the extraordinary phosphate deposits in the region of the Ashley River basin before it was largely mined out. (Keener, J.C., The Garden of Eden and the Flood, 1901, p. 244.) Evolutionists have cast about trying to propose a credible mechanism for mixing creatures from Cretaceous to Holocene in this stratum, but none has been satisfactory and the matter has been expunged from current references to this site. (Watson, John Allen, Man, Dinosaurs, and Mammals Together, 2001, p. 7.)




Fossil graveyards
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/08/06 15:19

Watch Kent Hovind destroy the opponents: destruction
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/08/06 18:55

To continue on "patterns which don't need a creating intelligence":

Quote:



In 1984, George Cowan organized a research group called the Santa Fe Institute, assembled to study what could be one of the most fundamental theories about the nature of our world’s complex systems, and the unifying principles that bind them. Though following relatively simple basic principles, the structural complexity of ant colonies is remarkable. World economies, with individual agents acting in limited capacity, produce exclusively macro-level behavior. The neuronal mess of the human brain produces concepts so liquid and elusive as thought, and consciousness, with no apparent or conceivable physical, cognitive correlate. The most core of these principles is this: that these seemingly inexplicable complex systems manage to form from relatively simple rules and initial, guiding principles. It is inconceivable, yet tempting, and subtle despite ubiquity.

Related to (but distinct from) complexity theory is chaos theory, which explains that small change in initial conditions can bring about dramatic, seemingly disordered effects. This is the theory that brought Edward Lorenz, in 1961, to coin the term “the butterfly effect” (the situation of a butterfly flapping its wings, and that slight effect it creates potentially generating a tornado that otherwise would not have been). Basically, many phenomena are impossibly unpredictable. They are completely chaotic, seemingly random. But, the very fact that a change in initial conditions (sometimes as small a change as a 4th decimal place for an initial value, or smaller) can bring about new results does show a degree of causality.

Chaos theory was developed in large part by Benoit Mandelbrot, who created the term “fractal”. A fractal is a self-similar geometric phenomenon, irregular but with a familiar and consistent pattern. Self-similarity refers to the property whereby no matter how much you zoom into an image, the same fractal pattern is represented. Or, rather, that the figure’s general theme/shape is composed of a number of instances of that exact same theme/shape, and these individual composing pieces are themselves composed of the same number and configuration of parts as the level above. Fractals are generated mathematically, through the use of specific types of self-referential equations. A small change in the initial conditions of a fractal generation produces vastly different large-scale results for the final picture.

Since their discovery, fractals have since been found throughout nature, in swirling seashells, electric bolts, types of broccoli, and are the most accurate description of the trace of coastlines. Fractal mathematics have been used to create complex and often beautiful works of art. The property of self-similarity produces hypnotic swirls, maddening designs of infinite, swallowing complexity.




This is a quotation from this site: http://www.thehumanpurpose.com/

I don't know what's this "human purpose" is about, please ignore it.
What I know is that the quote does explain quite well in short words what this self-referential system is about. Hope, that you can understand it, even if you didn't know much about that before...

EDIT(it is still too complicating, I try to explain it a bit better):
The main thing is this:
"Fractals are generated mathematically, through the use of specific types of self-referential equations."
The equations are called self-referential because there is a row of equations with the same form and same constants, BUT the result of the first of the row is placed into the second within the row via the variable, and the result of this equation is placed into the third of the row and so on...
This is compared to time, the row is imagined as the time, so each part of the row is a step within the time, the constants are constant conditions, and the results are representing the changes within the conditions.
And, if the changes within these conditions build patterns, then you can speak of a system.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/08/06 19:20

About the fossil fish article, "expunged" means sealed of from public, right? Eventhough this information might not be accessible trough the internet, I'm 100% confident it's far from expunged. Like said in that very same article, scientists haven't found/thought off a satisfactionary explanation. This implies it is or has been open for discussions, obviously others didn't agree with an explanation given. I don't believe in conspiracy theories when it comes to science, and any information that get's expunged should off course not be expunged. What are the arguments from that site to conclude the information isn't open to public?

Quote:

Phemox a dichotomy exists(whether anyone likes to admit it or not).

The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.




That's only true when you think one excludes the other possibility and when there were only 2 possible options. I don't think science excludes the possibility of a God existing ... yet.

Quote:

if an object is complex, has a purpose and has no plausible physical cause, it implies design.




Well this definition of 'design' here has it's flaws. Complex now or not, life began as something not complicated. Just because we don't know exactly how that first life was created or came to existance or whatever, doesn't directly mean it was designed. Also what's life's purpose then? Just replicating? Why for survival? Why do we need to survive? That 'purpose' part is so relative it makes my head start spinning, just keep asking more questions hehehe.

Besides one could state 'natural selection' and 'survival of the fittest' as some sort of designing factors too. When life would be designed, then it doesn't make much sense to make lifeforms with flaws. Explain that.

Quote:

However, since you already speak three languages fluently (that I know of) dont you think Hebrew and Greek might unnessesarily complicate your life?




Wether I speak those languages or not, doesn't matter at all. It's the translation process that's the problem, irrelevant in which language it occures. Besides Greek and Hebrew are not that complicated, again it's more the contextual interpretations that are questionable based on poor translations.

Quote:

Explain this one buddy. Is this the darwin fish?Umm no just more proof of great catastrophic flood type events: This poor fish didnt even get a chance to finish lunch before he suddenly died.




Right, sure this fish was knocked unconscious during a flood, together with his meal? I don't think so! This fish and his meal must have died within a few splitseconds to be even concerved like this. This smells like a vulcanic erruption or underwater avalanche to me, or something way more swift than a flood would be. Explain to me in detail how you think a flood could cause such a fossil...

Quote:

How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.




So easy to claim, but both modern and ancient literature combined with some common sense tells us otherwise really.

Quote:

Religion? No. Superstition? Certainly not. Both of these things are man-made inventions. I won't argue whether or not its good to go to church, but you're missing the point. The only thing we can really be sure of is God. Traditions, imagination, stories are all irrelevant.




Not only is religion a man-made invention, but God is big part of that invention. How can you be sure about that invention then? I definately agree with that last line, traditions, imagination, stories are all irrelevant, yet why do you seem to place the bible outside your very own belief of that last line? It doesn't make sense.

Quote:


I've researched scientific information on dark matter. The only proof I read for it is that it fills in the gaps left by the big bang. That's circular reasoning. It exists because of big bang. Its also caused by the big bang. Once again, did you ever just assume the theory is wrong?




Science doesn't simply assume something. Off course theories can be wrong, and we need to have evidence or other indications (for example, certain things might not make enough sense, well then it's possibly likely that it's unlikely) that a theory is wrong. If you've found some, tell us and we'd have to change our view.

Quote:

I mean, what are you some kind of conspiracy theorist?!




Yes, didn't you know? I know some interesting things about 9/11, anti-gravity technology, extraterrestrials, elvis and how they all are linked to pluto.

Quote:

There is a lot in nature that science does not yet know, or does not yet understand.




Definately, and as a result, science doesn't go with guarantees. Religion claims to be able to guarantee quite some things, I wonder when they discussed the conditions with God though. I didn't sign anywhere as far as I can remember either. So how can I not doubt anything that's religious?

Quote:


Evolutionists must have evolved a resistance to this natural human tendancy then. Do you really claim that you're invincible to this sort of reasoning? You're a human just like everyone else, believe it or not. However, this does help put a spotlight on the arrogance of evolutionists in thinking that their way of thinking is the standard for everyone else.




Evolutionist are not any different in this respect, and I never claimed otherwise. I do feel our reason for holding on to our view is more justified, but that's a subjective view, like I've tried to explain earlier.

Quote:

Those other excluded texts were often excluded for good reason. If something is written by an agnostic (and so on), why would we include it? Its couter-point to everything the bible teaches. You're just parroting long-refuted atheist arguments against the bible. Of course, I parrot a lot of creationist ideas, but at least I take the time to understand them and elaborate on them when I'm questioned.




I guess that's what you keep telling yourself, but there are plenty of religious sects who feel very different about this. There shouldn't have been any selection at all, selection means excluding parts of text. This implies that we need to believe the word of the people that selected those texts for them being even true and holy and authentic at all. It's obviously clear that the bible has been used in the past as an instrument of control, it had it's political power, wether you'd admit it or not, but religious texts are never politically neutral (or useless for that matter).

Cheers
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/08/06 20:50

Cause PHeMoX speaks about the uncertainty of making a difference between texts which are included in the bible and that which are excluded.

I had another thought: If God wishs to give the humans an idea that he exists and what they shall do, shouldn't he influence ANYthing that is written about him?
So, why don't you expect that anything written about God is actually about God, even if it contradicts, so you have to conclude which remains as the truth about God within this contradictions?
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/09/06 01:00

Quote:

Phemox a dichotomy exists(whether anyone likes to admit it or not).
The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.


Unless you add lots of qualifiers as to what type of evolution and what type of creation you talk about this statement is false.

Quote:

I don't think science excludes the possibility of a God existing ... yet.


Science can not exclude the possibility of gods in general. Since science is concerned with natural events only, if there was anything super or subnatural it would be outside of the realm of science. However, specific gods can be excluded.

Quote:

if an object is complex, has a purpose and has no plausible physical cause, it implies design.


You mean like god (complex, purpose and no plausible physical cause) ?

Quote:

When life would be designed, then it doesn't make much sense to make lifeforms with flaws.


Irish_Farmer has been explaining this as the result of downward evolution. I think that's the only answer that won't get you into theological hot water.

Quote:

How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.


Not changed ? So you still believe in the pope as god's spokesperson?

Quote:

I had another thought: If God wishs to give the humans an idea that he exists and what they shall do, shouldn't he influence ANYthing that is written about him?


Most apologists seem to favor the idea of a cosmic personality test. If god was to provide clear guidance then this limits a person's choice for/against religion. (Apparently that was not a problem with people back in the good old days that had their live miracles).
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/09/06 01:42

Quote:

Irish_Farmer has been explaining this as the result of downward evolution. I think that's the only answer that won't get you into theological hot water.




Okey, I remember, but why didn't God put a hold to that downward evolution too then, or why did it happen at all? I guess Irish_Farmer will answer that it was because of Adam and Eve's little sin. To me it seems that if this is true, God won't forgive very easily at all, infact isn't it just plain devilish to not forgive Adam and Eve this one mistake, but instead curse them with whatever evil there is now? (death, 'downward evolution', etc.) Again, this still makes little to no sense to me. It's like killing a 3-year old child because it dropped some of his food, which is an inevitable event off course. Besides, what did I (we) do wrong, I (we) never ate that apple.
According to what the bible says, I guess God did make us imperfect, and that's why Adam and Eve couldn't resist the temptation. Perfect beings would have obeyed. Well if God wanted us to have a free will and be imperfect, then he shouldn't be so surprised things went a bit different. Well so much for the claims that God díd create perfect life to start with.

Quote:

Science can not exclude the possibility of gods in general. Since science is concerned with natural events only, if there was anything super or subnatural it would be outside of the realm of science. However, specific gods can be excluded.




I guess you are right, but I meant that there might be a point at which a theological explanation get's impossible to hold on to, without denying a certain amount of scientific evidence that indicates that several things are not adding up within for example the creation theory. It can not exclude maybe, but it could make it very highly unlikely or close to impossible.

Quote:

Most apologists seem to favor the idea of a cosmic personality test. If god was to provide clear guidance then this limits a person's choice for/against religion. (Apparently that was not a problem with people back in the good old days that had their live miracles).




Right, another contradicting explanation.

Quote:

but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God.




'Word of' God and especially 'infallible word of God' implies hearing words from God himself, not reading them in a book written by a lot of different humans. Humans make errors at least, let alone they could easily abuse the power of such a text and change it's content.
Also, I wonder if God has some sort of signature added to 'his' texts to let us know it's authentic? He has not, but I think I know why. Personally I think there's a difference between having free will, and letting us know what's reality. Letting us know that a God exist still wouldn't necessarily mean that we all would suddenly start to pray, eventhough it might be stupid not to, but that doesn't exclude the option we have.

Cheers
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/09/06 01:56

Quote:

Don't get me wrong: What I've posted was my personal opinion of the reasons and motivations of creationism. It was not meant as an argument against creationism. It's clear that you as a creationist have a different opinion.




I would love to say, "Fair enough," but I can't. If I point out realistic reasons why your theory is bunk, and you respond by telling me your opinion of my theory, is that really fair?

Quote:

For argumenting against a "creationism theory" I'd need to know that theory first. I didn't find it on any creationist website, therefore my suspicion that such a theory does not exist at all.




Let's look at what creation has to say about life. "All animals were created by a mysterious unobserved power. They are allowed variation, including speciation, but there is a limit to how much they can vary."

Here's evolution's theory. "Life sprung up from non-living chemicals by some mysterious unobserved process. This original cell (or life) accounts for all of the biodiversity on earth by some mysterious, unobservable kind of mutation or other equally mysterious and unobservable process."

Its pretty easy to tell what both theories are. You're a smart enough guy, you should be able to figure out what the creationist theory is. We may not have put it in a handy-dandy definition (as most evolutionists also don't), but I've read creationist sites and they definately seem to agree on this basic idea of creation. So does that help?

If you want specifics, I can give them. For example, the impact of hybridization on creation theory, the impact of genetics on creation theory, so on and so forth. I just figured you could extrapolate it for yourself.

Quote:

I'm definitely interested - also in looking for some more stuff for my website - in finally learning about the creationism theory. But a little more than the few commonplaces that you've posted. Sure, I already knew that creationists believe that species were supernaturally created. But if that's all, it's not a theory - that's still superstition.




So then I can start calling evolution superstition? Because your supernatural process of accounting for life and biodiversity is just as mysterious as mine.

Except, creationists don't waste time trying to trick people using junk science to say there is empirical proof of evolution. Why evolutionists find this to be so important, I'll never understand and I think its unimportant to speculate, although I have a few guesses.

Quote:

you'll need a consistent model about how and when this creation should have happened, and how it can be verified or falsified in observations, and how it fits into the theory system of science: mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.




Dare I mention that evolution has been at odds with genetics almost since its adoption into the mainstream? Why don't I just do what evolutionists do. Talk about ACTUAL science, and then mix my religion into it to brainwash people. "These monkeys are adept at social interaction. Just like people are. We're very similar." "These fish were created by God to be very adaptable to harsh environments." Your theory hasn't integrated into science, it has to ignore science (or be taught inspite of proof along side science) in order to be taken seriously. The blade cuts both ways.

Quote:

please don't take my remarks about superstition as an insult.




Don't worry about it.

Quote:

Religion is consistent with science, superstition isn't.




Precisely, which is why creationists want evolution out of our schools. Let's stick to science, not superstition.

Quote:

(its based on miracles, i.e. supernatural events).




We haven't observed life being created. But we also haven't observed it arising randomly. If anything we've only discovered why it CANT rise randomly. What's the difference?

Quote:

From your remarks about Dark Matter and the Hubble Constant I see that you know less about astronomy than I thought before. You have some very wrong ideas of physics, and of the meaning of scientific theories in general. I don't have the time now, but when I'm back next week I'll post a specific answer to that topic, including a brief introduction in astronomy.




Oh, c'mon! You should know how it works by now. I make my narrow, over generalized, or sometimes outright incorrect remark, and you respond and we go from there. I won't claim to be right until I hear your refutation. Like I said, I don't believe anything until I've tested it against opposing opinions. This is just my initial remark.

Like with the peppered moths. I start with the fact that they 'forced' a lot of information about it, but its not until after that that the discussion really gets started.

See you soon.

Quote:

How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.

So easy to claim, but both modern and ancient literature combined with some common sense tells us otherwise really.




No, what you're saying is easier to claim than it is to back up. Let's have it then, explain to me what you believe. Not that this isn't just a distraction from the abyssmal state of evolution, and the impossibility of defending it. Actually, if you don't feel like backing it up, then whatever. I'm really not concerned about changing your mind. You've rejected God, so for you its a matter of finding evidence to back up what you believe. I'm not going to pretend that I'm in any position to intervene.

Quote:

Science doesn't simply assume something.




The origin of life? The Big bang? There is little to no evidence of either of these events, but they're assumed to be true.

Quote:

Definately, and as a result, science doesn't go with guarantees.




That's BS. Evolutionists (not scientists, so technically you may be right) guarantee we were evolved, they guarantee the universe is an accident, they guarantee life is an accident. There's a whole lot of guaranteeing going on.

Quote:

I guess that's what you keep telling yourself, but there are plenty of religious sects who feel very different about this.




Let me ask this then. Let's say we left out one or two (out of the myriad of obsviously corrupted texts) out. Does that change the validity of the ones we've included. You seem to think that the exclusion of a handful of texts is proof enough of the fallibility of the Bible. Doesn't make sense to me.

If you were truly interested in hearing the other viewpoint, there are many websites out there that refute these claims. These claims against the bible are old news.

Quote:

It's obviously clear that the bible has been used in the past as an instrument of control, it had it's political power, wether you'd admit it or not, but religious texts are never politically neutral (or useless for that matter).




If you're arguing that man is corrupt (which it seems you are, because the bible can't control who misuses it) then you're preaching to the choir.

Quote:

Not changed ? So you still believe in the pope as god's spokesperson?




So this is still the tired and worn out argument that since christians disagree about meaningless details, we've completely changed? I thought you guys were talking about significant, relevant change.

Quote:

Most apologists seem to favor the idea of a cosmic personality test. If god was to provide clear guidance then this limits a person's choice for/against religion.




I disagree. I think if God himself came down and in an impressive display convinced everyone in the world at once that he existed, it would only take a matter of days before people started to lose their faith. The problem isn't having blind faith, in spite of evidence, but having faith in spite of our defiant wills. That's the point. Since we've 'fallen' the difficult choice isn't in believing in God without evidence (though I disagree that there's a lack of evidence), its believing in God despite our inclination not to believe in Him. Why would God care why we believe in him? If we come to him because we've read a tract, or we come to him because we've heard a song on the radio, or we come to him because we recognize his signature on his creation, I don't think he really minds. I think he'd be happy just to see us return to him. I also think this whole idea of 'blind faith' was just planted by an atheist to make christians more complacent. But that's just my opinion.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/09/06 01:57

Oops, that last one was me.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/09/06 03:01

Quote:

I don't know what's this "human purpose" is about, please ignore it.
What I know is that the quote does explain quite well in short words what this self-referential system is about. Hope, that you can understand it, even if you didn't know much about that before.


Ya I couldnt quite understand the "human purpose" theme that the author was trying to develop, however the chaos theory is a very interesting subject matter for me. This kind of reminds me of some other theories like game theory in that they both seem to have strong scientific and mathematical support yet they are used to help understand complex systems which govern extremely complex systems. I think I understand where you were going with this also. The actual self-referential aspect of fractals is also very interesting to me, and I have ordered a book on the subject. CHAOS If you notice that this book only costs $1 (used) and some change and it is highly praised as an introduction to chaos theory. Perhaps if you order it and read it as well we can have some common ground in the explanation of the unbelievable complexity of the systems we observe.
In the meantime I think it would be interesting to make some fractals, and I have found that so far the math is understandable for making at least a mandelbrot set. Unfortunately I dont have anymore time tonight to post anything else so I'll have to write more tomorro.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/09/06 14:31

@Phemox
Quote:

Okey, I remember, but why didn't God put a hold to that downward evolution too then, or why did it happen at all? I guess Irish_Farmer will answer that it was because of Adam and Eve's little sin. To me it seems that if this is true, God won't forgive very easily at all, infact isn't it just plain devilish to not forgive Adam and Eve this one mistake, but instead curse them with whatever evil there is now? (death, 'downward evolution', etc.) Again, this still makes little to no sense to me. It's like killing a 3-year old child because it dropped some of his food, which is an inevitable event off course. Besides, what did I (we) do wrong, I (we) never ate that apple.
According to what the bible says, I guess God did make us imperfect, and that's why Adam and Eve couldn't resist the temptation. Perfect beings would have obeyed. Well if God wanted us to have a free will and be imperfect, then he shouldn't be so surprised things went a bit different. Well so much for the claims that God díd create perfect life to start with.




It really comes from a misunderstanding of the Biblical God. God has a set of parameters which He Himself has imposed upon Himself. In order for His integrity to remain intact, He would never be able to violate these parameters. So in a sense, God Himself lives under the subjection to a set of rules. It seems hard to imagine or conceive of God being subject to rules, but it is Biblically proven through statements such as "It is impossible for God to lie"

Everything we observe about God in the Bible revolves around His unshakeable Words. In other words, He never goes back on a promise. The characteristic is so integral to His nature that it literally defines God in a way.

So how does this apply to the Genesis situation and the fall of man? Well after the fall of Adam, it was not as if God did not want to forgive Adam and Eve, as you have suggested. It was not that He didnt want to, but God was literally unable to. He was (and is) limited to the parameters in which He set into action. Insomuch that God had already declared death on Adam and Eve if they ate of the forbidden tree, there was absolutely no way He could go back on His Word, because if He had gone back on His Word, everything that He was(and is) would be destroyed. God is as powerful as His Word. If He ever broke His Word, both He Himself, and everything which is held together with His Word would disintegrate.

However, even given this situation, God immmediately sought reconciliation with Adam and Eve. Even in the Garden of Eden, as He was preparing to drive Adam and Eve out, He instituted a method for their eventual salvation. He also set up the sacrificial system immediately.

But what is hell, and what is eternal destruction? Essentially it is the seperation from the presence of God. And most people that reject the Biblical God dont mind that idea in itself, because they dont think they would like to be near the presence of the Biblical God. Thats all? No big deal. However it is important to note that we are all living in the presence of God right now. We have no idea of the horrors which would accompany the vacuum of His attentions. The hellfire itself would be largely secondary to the absence of God.

Now the punishment itself would not occur if we were not made in God's image. This is another area where people seem to misunderstand the eternal punishment. God did not devise a way to eternally punish people and call it "hell". The fact that hell is an eternal area of incarceration is because of the eternal nature of our souls. Our souls are created like Gods' so therefore they cannot just stop, they must keep going on and on. So God did not decide He wanted to hurt everyone who disagreed with Him by making them suffer for ever and ever. We were ALREADY going to live forever and ever before Adam sinned.

So the issue parallels the familiar riddle: "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?"

Well yes He can, He already did. The rock is man, it is us. God cannot do anything about us. The reason why is that He has created limits for Himself, and He has created us without limits. There is absolutely nothing God can do about the human willpower. We alone have the power to decide.

So He cannot lift the rock, but He can build walls around the rock which the rock cannot penetrate, and He can forget the rock ever existed.

Now, why do we have to pay a price which Adam and Eve are responsible for? Because they are our parents and we incur the debt of our parents. However, as I have attempted to point out. We dont have to pay the price at all, we dont have to go to hell, God already instituted a means of restitution. This restitution is possible only through the very blood of God,via the crucifixtion of Jesus Christ.

OK, so enough of theology. However, remember if you are going to ask philosophical questions, then you are going to get philosophical answers And what I gave you, I assure you, was a very very brief summary, and a short run over a very complicated series of doctrines. These questions you have asked have been asked repeatedly for thousands of years, and they fill our documents for centuries. So , if there was ever a "FAQ of the Universe" you have just stated one of them

However, most people ask such questions for rhetorical reasons, and dont really expect answers beyond their already pre-conceived notions. As if the questions themselves were the evidence to the contrary. However, I think you'll find, if you do the proper research, that there are much lengthier explanations than mine. A whole body of research exists into why the Biblical God did what He did, and why God is doing what He does. It is called Biblical theology, it has been researched by many credited professionals with large scholarly abilities throughout almost two thousand years of recorded history.

Usually I see these sorts of questions and just skip over them as rhetoric, but I know you are halfway sincere, so I decided to elaborate a little.

Anyway, back to evolution....
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/09/06 15:31

@MArco_Grubert
Quote:

Irish_Farmer has been explaining this as the result of downward evolution. I think that's the only answer that won't get you into theological hot water.


Well, if you consider that DNA we have today is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of DNA, it is really amazing that we can live to sit here and talk about evolution at all! Which speaks to the incredible design of DNA replication processes, yet gives us no clue to how these processes allegedly evolved.

The existance of extra junk DNA is probably just the result of extra copying from generation to generation.

One hypothesis theorizes that much of the extra DNA exists to increase the physical bulk of the nucleus.

However the prevailing view in molecular biology is that the extra sequences are somewhat parasitic-that over the generations a collection of sequences have accumulated in the cell, exploiting the cells resources and machinery and for its own reproduction needs without providing any benefit to the cell in return.

This situation seems to undermine natural selection in that if these sequences are indeed useless, why wouldnt they have been selected out? The law of conservation in evolution weeds out useless machinations. This is easily observable in bee colonies where workers are executed when their usefulness has ended. It is a very efficient natural system seen all throughout nature.

The other amazement is that the essential DNA replication is still a very precise system. Species have elements called transposable elements which have the ability to "jump" from one location to another in the DNA and even to insert additional copies of themselves in different locations.

standard introductory molecular biology textbook

Quote:

Phemox a dichotomy exists(whether anyone likes to admit it or not).
The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.


Unless you add lots of qualifiers as to what type of evolution and what type of creation you talk about this statement is false.


I dont know where your having a hard time understanding this. Evolution means change over time, creation means appearence instantly. They both use time as a factor, however in creation the time factor is zero.

There are no qualifiers to add, instead take all the qualifiers away. Evolution of anything means change over time. An object or group of objects appear at a certain place in space. It has appeared there from either one or two methods:

1)It came from somewhere else over time(evolution)
2)It appeared there instantly(creation)

A baseball can find itself over the plate by 1)being propelled through physical(newtonian or relative) forces or 2)it suddenly appeared there.

The origin of the appearence of any matter can be described by either one or the other. Therefore a dichotomy does exist.

Quote:

Quote:

if an object is complex, has a purpose and has no plausible physical cause, it implies design.


You mean like god (complex, purpose and no plausible physical cause) ?


Quote




Perhaps your right if your referring to a different type of God then the one I am referring to. This goes back to the root definitions of God. The definition of the God I worship is not as a complex created object, but rather a complex creator.

Once again, the universe is an effect which demands a cause. That cause itself cannot possibly be composed of the effect. Therefore the observable "object" we are speaking of (the universe), cannot contain the information to bootstrap itself. If you cant understand that then Im afraid I cant help you.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/09/06 16:04

@Irish_Farmer
Quote:

That's BS. Evolutionists (not scientists, so technically you may be right) guarantee we were evolved, they guarantee the universe is an accident, they guarantee life is an accident. There's a whole lot of guaranteeing going on.


If I had a dollar for every time I heard "evolution is a fact"...

Oh wait..evolution is a fact AND a theory!! web page
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/10/06 05:25

Quote:

The existance of extra junk DNA is probably just the result of extra copying from generation to generation.

One hypothesis theorizes that much of the extra DNA exists to increase the physical bulk of the nucleus.

However the prevailing view in molecular biology is that the extra sequences are somewhat parasitic-that over the generations a collection of sequences have accumulated in the cell, exploiting the cells resources and machinery and for its own reproduction needs without providing any benefit to the cell in return.




While all of these might be true, its also true that much of non-coding dna is responsible for safe dna replication (I may be mixing up the terms, but I'm sure you get the point). Some of it, appears to be junk (you can't prove non-coding dna has no purpose, you can only prove we don't know the purpose).

The problem is in a lazy designer. Well, if chimps and humans already have similar DNA, it stands to reason that much of their 'true' junk dna will be generated to be similar (even with a creator).

JCL is gonna be a bit overwhelmed when he gets back!
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/10/06 12:52

No, junk dna doesn't make sure dna replication is safe, that's not it's purpose. There are markers in the dna that will make sure it get's replicated correctly, but that's not the junk dna. I don't think the real purpose of the junk dna is known, but it does seem to indicate that it once could have been usefull dna and now just doesn't has a real purpose anymore. But with the right mutations, it can get usefull again, but yes I'm not sure if this was witnessed yet inside a laboratory.

Quote:

The problem is in a lazy designer. Well, if chimps and humans already have similar DNA, it stands to reason that much of their 'true' junk dna will be generated to be similar (even with a creator).




This argument seems to almost(?) contradict your 'degeneration' or 'downfall evolution' theory a bit don't you think? You seem to say that this human junk dna must be kinda the same as chimps, well if that's the case, why do you skip the possibility of a more direct relation between both species? (Sorry if I misunderstood something here.) If something is 98% the same (junk dna included), then don't you think it's enough similar to conclude both things are related?
Personally I wouldn't be very surprised if the junk dna is not really the same, that junk dna should be parts becomming inactive after a certain evolutionary step. Maybe the junk dna will be the same, when both species been through the same stage of evolution, but it would only prove their direct relation. You said it yourself, that you doubt certain evolutionary changes can happen more than 1 time.

I'm also quite sure the junk dna between different species of humans or monkeys is different too. Why exactly would you expect it to be similar?

Quote:

That's BS. Evolutionists (not scientists, so technically you may be right) guarantee we were evolved, they guarantee the universe is an accident, they guarantee life is an accident. There's a whole lot of guaranteeing going on.




I'm not sure which evolutionists claim to be able to guarantee that stuff, but I would definately not claim to be perfectly right. Like I said, scientists don't give guarantees, any scientist doing that nevertheless, is a bad scientist not being open enough for a different model. A theory, when not 100000% proven (which almost can't be), can not give guarantees.
I know some evolutionists probably kinda sunk into that swamp of believing only their own 'scientific' words, but you've got similar stuff going on at the religious side, I don't take those serious (for clarity; both evolutionists like that, or those extreme religious people denying any other possibility)..

Quote:

It really comes from a misunderstanding of the Biblical God. God has a set of parameters which He Himself has imposed upon Himself. In order for His integrity to remain intact, He would never be able to violate these parameters. So in a sense, God Himself lives under the subjection to a set of rules. It seems hard to imagine or conceive of God being subject to rules, but it is Biblically proven through statements such as "It is impossible for God to lie"




Thanks for this explanation. But God get's parameters just to be able to evade my kind of questions, again I doubt the biblical content. I'm not saying God can't be limited, he is a God afterall, so he could very well be anything you like.
My problem is still the source off such claims. Old news or not, I don't think a lot of these arguments against the biblical god have be succesfully defended at all, but that's not really this thread's topic. On the other hand, God is a very central thing when it comes to your creation theory, so ...

Quote:

This situation seems to undermine natural selection in that if these sequences are indeed useless, why wouldnt they have been selected out? The law of conservation in evolution weeds out useless machinations. This is easily observable in bee colonies where workers are executed when their usefulness has ended. It is a very efficient natural system seen all throughout nature.




They are selected out, there's just still traces/parts left off dna that once had a function. Dna information doesn't simply dissappear when it becomes defect. Genetic information that's neutral or positive, will stay, I think this junk dna is quite neutral.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/11/06 00:10

Quote:

No, junk dna doesn't make sure dna replication is safe, that's not it's purpose.




Ok, let me elaborate. It makes transcription (I think that was the term I was looking for) possible in part, and even slows it down so that it doesn't happen too fast. Mutations of junk DNA can cause cancer, which doesn't prove that they have a purpose, but does prove that we do need it intact.

Furthermore, it gives a reference frame for the correct copying of DNA. It has its purposes. Just, forget your theory for a second, and quit ignoring scientific discoveries just because they contradict your assumptions. Evolution can still be true, even if junk DNA has a purpose.

Of course, this doesn't account for all of junk DNA, but we also don't know everything there is to know about genetics yet.

Quote:

but it does seem to indicate that it once could have been usefull dna and now just doesn't has a real purpose anymore.




Maybe, but there's no proof of this.

Quote:

The problem is in a lazy designer. Well, if chimps and humans already have similar DNA, it stands to reason that much of their 'true' junk dna will be generated to be similar (even with a creator).


This argument seems to almost(?) contradict your 'degeneration' or 'downfall evolution' theory a bit don't you think? You seem to say that this human junk dna must be kinda the same as chimps,




I think it must be the same as chimps because our coding dna must be about the same as chimps (actually I may be wrong about this because our proteins if I remember correctly are very different from chimp proteins). But this is just speculation on my part, because I don't know what 'causes' junk dna to appear. My theory predicts that in the future we will have found a purpose for pretty much all of the non-coding DNA, or will at least have a consistent explanation for its existence besides evolution. That's what I'm waiting for. Everything up until that time is speculation, which is ok, but not exactly proof of one theory or another.

Quote:

well if that's the case, why do you skip the possibility of a more direct relation between both species?




Believe me, I would assume that this was evidence of an ancestor if I thought it was possible that we were the descendants of a primitive man-like creature. Even if for some reason I was convinced evolution happened, I wouldn't abandon my belief in God. So this isn't a conflict of interest for me. I might have to come up with all sorts of ways to make the two ideas compatible, but it wouldn't really offend my sensibility.

Quote:

then don't you think it's enough similar to conclude both things are related?




The problem for me is that this isn't very conclusive evidence. With our still-limited knowledge of genetics, we can make all sorts of speculations. But I'm more worried about the impossibility of evolution.

Quote:

You said it yourself, that you doubt certain evolutionary changes can happen more than 1 time.




Actually I doubt that any evolutionary steps can even happen the first time.

Quote:

I'm also quite sure the junk dna between different species of humans or monkeys is different too. Why exactly would you expect it to be similar?




Maybe what I said was misleading. I was just saying that if this junk dna truly was junk, then it might be expected to be similar regardless of evolution. The only problem for my theory is that junk DNA exists in the first place. Of course, scientists are slowly alleviating that problem with further discovery.

Quote:

I'm not sure which evolutionists claim to be able to guarantee that stuff, but I would definately not claim to be perfectly right. Like I said, scientists don't give guarantees, any scientist doing that nevertheless, is a bad scientist not being open enough for a different model.




Good. Then you agree that the majority of evolution should be thrown out of school textbooks. Since the way its taught, where I went to school anyway, is that evolution is THE way things happened, and all other speculation on origins must fit within the model of evolution.

Quote:

I know some evolutionists probably kinda sunk into that swamp of believing only their own 'scientific' words, but you've got similar stuff going on at the religious side




The difference of course being that scientists are supposed to be objective and not get caught up in their faith. Evolution, I'm sorry to say, is faith-based. There are things in nature that may 'suggest' evolution, but the fact is that its still based on faith (assumptions, presuppositions, whatever you want to call it). Even if you believe evolution you CANNOT deny this fact. Unless you have of course bred a dog to become something other than a dog? As compelling as the fossil record might be, it pales in comparison to the complete lack of modern evidence of evolution.

All creationists want is for evolutionists to finally admit that there is little to no SOLID evidence for evolution, and that teaching it in school as fact is beyond being unethical.





I keep hearing this theory that if we lose evolution we lose all of science. Taking speculation out of science simply leaves you with the basic observable facts. This is what science is all about. If we stop speculating as to how bones were evolved, don't they still exist? Can't we still study and understand them? Evolution has done nothing to advance science, and instead has been used to mislead and confuse our youth. Teaching incorrect assumptions about anatomy as fact (whale legs, coccyx, appendix) has actually proved to be detrimental in understanding science.

Evolution is the only theory I know of that doesn't actually predict anything about observable science, but simply predicts its own speculative evidence. In fact, its the only theory that is allowed to exist despite that the things it might predict about observable biology aren't there (mutations not doing what they are predicted to do, etc).

While the more extreme side of me sees the need for evolution to go altogether, I'll be happy if all of the lies are taken out of textbooks. Why evolutionists are so offended by this idea is beyond me. Of course, that even the most intelligent of evolutionists still believe in the myth of vestigial organs goes a long way in possibly explaining this phenomenon.

Quote:

They are selected out, there's just still traces/parts left off dna that once had a function. Dna information doesn't simply dissappear when it becomes defect. Genetic information that's neutral or positive, will stay, I think this junk dna is quite neutral.




Maybe he just meant the fact that its so consistent. Why would it be relatively universal among the entire species if it provides no benefit? Of course, I could be mistaken.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/11/06 11:52

Junk dna's pure existence indicate that even after like 75 million (for example in mice) of evolution, that data didn't get lost, so it must be vital. So yes I might be wrong about wether or not it has a purpose indeed, but it's not giving a frame or making dna translation safe because it slows it down. There are marker parts for that, 'start' and 'stop' codons. And maybe some unknown other markers.

Quote:

We know this because ever since rodents, humans, chickens and fish shared an ancestor - about 400 million years ago - these sequences have resisted change. This strongly suggests that any alteration would have damaged the animals' ability to survive.

"These initial findings tell us quite a lot of the genome was doing something important other than coding for proteins," Professor Haussler said.

He thinks the most likely scenario is that they control the activity of indispensable genes and embryo development.

Nearly a quarter of the sequences overlap with genes and may help slice RNA - the chemical cousin of DNA involved in protein production - into different forms, Professor Haussler believes.

The conserved elements that do not actually overlap with genes tend to cluster next to genes that play a role in embryonic development.

"The fact that the conserved elements are hanging around the most important development genes, suggests they have some role in regulating the process of development and differentiation," said Professor Haussler.

Rethinking "junk" DNA

The next step is to pin down a conclusive function for these chunks of genetic material.

One method could be to produce genetically engineered mice that have bits of the sequences "knocked out". By comparing their development with that of normal mice, scientists might be able to work out the DNA's purpose.




You've meant this? This doesn't conflict with evolution at all, it's rather supportive imho.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/11/06 23:27

Quote:

You've meant this? This doesn't conflict with evolution at all, it's rather supportive imho.




It might not be a problem for evolution, I can see that much. I don't really know that much about non-coding DNA. But I don't think it supports it. This would just add even more complexity to the problem of why DNA would evolve in the first place.

At best it doesn't conflict with either theory.

Quote:

"These initial findings tell us quite a lot of the genome was doing something important other than coding for proteins," Professor Haussler said.




Duh. This is the opposite of what evolution predicted, and along the lines of the prediction of my theory: creation. Obviously since evolution is bunk and my theory isn't, it was only a matter of time until we had enough evidence to come to this conclusion. This doesn't explain why it exists in the first place, but does explain that it isn't evolutionary leftovers. Which is what I've been saying all along, and what my theory said from the beginning. Eat it!

Quote:

Nearly a quarter of the sequences overlap with genes and may help slice RNA




Wait, you mean it does what I say it does? Like you've been saying it doesn't do? I say, "It aids transcription." You say, "No it doesn't." And then you give a quote that says it does. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

So what I see here is that this non-coding DNA is essential, in its present form, to the creature in its present form (most likely). I don't see how this suggests evolution. It suggests a creator for this 'junk' DNA as much as it suggests anything else. And since evolution isn't possible, you have a bigger hurdle to overcome than I do.

Thanks for looking that quote up for me, though. It'll save me some trouble.
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/11/06 23:50

I cannot argue any of this from any real level of science. Therefore, I would simply like to ask a few questions. I am not asking these questions to prove or disprove anything. I simply would like to know how evolution theory handles these types of observations. As most of you can guess, I am also a "creationist". In any case, here are a few questions/observations.

First, a note on evolution:

Evolution must not only account for the vast variety of species on planet Earth, but must also account for the animals behaviors. For example, many animals have defensive and offensive capabilities. If evolution is true, then these abilities must also have evolved as it is certain that the original protein did not have these abilities (i.e. camoflage, mimicing other animals, etc). The basic question I have is how does evolution account for these "acquired" behaviors that many animals display. Below is an example.

Last night I was watching some short video clips of sea animals with my son, Joshua. He has wanted to be a deep sea marine biologist since he was five (don't ask me where he came up with this idea because I really don't know, though I think it is great!) and now he is eleven. As a result of his curriousity I am learning more and more about sea life. In any case, we were watching some facinating clips on the internet about a creature called a Mimic Octopus. What a facinating creature. Not only does it have the ability, like other similar creatures have, to change its color to some degree and to become either smooth or rough in texture to blend in with its surroundings, but it also mimics other sea creatures to keep from getting eaten. In one instance we watched as it took on the shape of a flat fish similar to a flounder. It was amazing to watch it position its tentacles as it swam and to litterally transform in front of my eyes into what looked like another sea animal. Then we saw photos of this animal mimicing other sea animals like a sea snake, a rock fish, a star fish and others. How does evolution account for this type of behavior in an animal?

At one point in time Joshua also like to watch birds. As we would read about birds we saw that specific birds always build the same kind of nest. I think just about everyone knows this. If you see a Robin's nest then you know that a Robin built it. Each type of bird builds its own type of nest and, although "mommy" and "daddy" never teach their young how to build this type of nest, the next generation heads off and builds exactly the same kind of nest. How does evolution account for this behavior among birds?

Back to the sea ... this time the deep sea. As man began to explore the deepest regions of the sea he found an abundance of life where he thought no life could exist. This was especially true around the vents that released boiling hot (actually hotter!) steam from active volcanoes. One such lifeform is a giant tube worm. For some time these worms were a bit of a mystery. Here is something about them that I pulled from a web site:

Quote:

On the bottom of the ocean around deep-sea hydrothermal vents, there is a profusion of life that thrives on the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas released from the vents. Some of the most impressive of the creatures that live here are the giant tube worms, which can grow up to eight feet long. These tube worms grow in large clusters around the vents and live inside hard, shell-like protective tubes that attach to the rocks. They live in a symbiotic relationship with a bacteria that may hold clues as to how life on earth began billions of years ago. These worms lack mouths, anuses, intestines and stomachs, and scientists were at a loss to explain how these tube worms were getting nutrients to survive and grow. It turns out their insides are lined with bacteria that oxidize the H2S, turning it into usable nutrients for the worms. The bacteria, in turn, benefit from the relationship because the worms deliver blood containing hemoglobin which helps the bacteria to break down the sulfides.




How does evolution explain the existance of symbiotic relationships like this exampled in the deep sea giant tube worm? If the tube worm did not have the bacteria it would die. If the bacteria did not have the tube worm then it would die. This indicates that both the bacteria and the giant tube worm would have had to have developed this dependency simultaneously in order to have evolved to this form of dependency as we see it today. And this is not the only symbiotic relationship on the planet. There are many others.

Well, that should do it for now. Please keep in mind that I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. I am simply asking how evolution answers these questions. Often times the argument between evolution and creation will center on the origin of species, but both ideas need to go further and explain even the common behaviors that specific species have as well as symbiotic relationships and a lot of other things that simply make life possible and help a species to survive.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/12/06 03:56

Quote:

I cannot argue any of this from any real level of science.


What a coincidence, neither does evolution.

Quote:

How does evolution explain the existance of symbiotic relationships like this exampled in the deep sea giant tube worm?


My goodness, they dont know! Do you know what your asking here? They have No_Clue. Whoosh! It will fly right over their heads.

Nobody knows too much about these worms. Some people think that these undersea "black smokers" represent the very cradle of life. There is a hypothesis circulating among them about ALL life evolving from around undersea volcanos. In other words, they think the original abiogenesis occured here.

They will talk about Microsporidia as possible precursors to eukaryotes via a symbiotic relationship.

But they will most likely talk about cellular life forms which couldnt live without engulfing other cellular life forms. They will point to these early procaryotes as the beginnings of symbiosis (Perhaps chloroplasts). Then they will attempt to show you pictures of creatures with graduating orders of complexity towards that of the tube worm. They will attempt to say that the cells in the bodies of tube worm diverged and remained conserved during the millions of years which the tube worm evolved. Who knows what absurdities they will bring up in reply to that question. But I imagine they will all be pretty general in nature because apparently not much is known about these creatures.

What I think is interesting about the relationship expressed between this worm and its bacteria are the bacteria themselves. Because there is no sun down that deep photosynthesis is out of the question, so the bacteria use a process called chemosynthesis, which breaks down the sulfur from the undersea vents into food. The reason why chemosynthesis is such a strong case for abiogenesis to evolution is because it deals so directly with non-living substances, and thus begins to help experiments like Miller and Urey's life in a testube experiment. Heres some information on the subject web page On this URL you will find another scientist attempting to blunder through an explanation...

Interesting set of questions. I feel bad for jcl and company:) I think they will probably use the famous and convincing "la la la I cant hear you la la la" argument

Or if you catch them in a period of great enlightment they will simply call you crazy, ask why God created the Devil if He's so smart, and say that natural selection did it


Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/12/06 06:40

Uh oh! Evolution is REALLY starting to run into trouble now. It looks like mutations aren't necessarily random after all.

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs017.html

What's that? Creationists outside the US?

I know what you're thinking, "Oh no another creationist website." But considering that this one was called, "A well presented site and one of the very few creationist sites to provide links to sites with opposing views." by No Answers in Genesis, I think speaks well for it (in a sense).

At least evolutionists seem to have some respect for the website.

If this is true, we might see the end of evolution within the next ten years. I'm definately going to keep my eyes on this field of research.
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/12/06 14:34

@ Dan:

Thanks for the nice examples, Dan. I didn't hear about them before. The variaty of the nature surprises again and again.

Octopus' behavior:

The question is about intelligence. My opinion: looking at fitness (in the sense of assimilation to a fast changing environment) evolution is very slow when you compare it to intelligence. In consequence, when a species got more not pre-determined neurons than others, it gives a competitive edge.

Considering the octupus' intelligence and the shapes of the birds' nests and the symbiosis of the tube worm and the bacteria, there is this high improbability that such complex systems could develop.
Science, or scientists are aware of this. Improbabilities are a common term within science as far as I know.
The mentioned theories of neg-entropy and self-referential systems, or call it cybernetics or theory of deterministic chaos, IMHO give answers.


@ Irish Farmer:

On doubts in science:

Doubts are normal in science, they are the base of science. Doubts and curiosity. Develop a theorie, and you'll have a doubter! That means, to find a doubter of a theory doesn't mean that a theory isn't true. Within science there is a competition of theories. But wether a theory establishs depends on observations and investigations, and on the simplissity how the theory integrates them into a coherence of explanations.
As far as I heard within a discussion with a biologist, there is a lot discussion among biologists about the details within the evolution theory, but not about evolution in general.
Another word about doubts: As everything in our modern world science can only work because of division of labour/distribution of tasks, that means that scientific recognition depends on a huge amount of information which no single person can validate on his own. And this in addition means that it relies on trust that the other researchers did their job well, and that other scientists proved there work etc.
In your posts, Irish Farmer, your are not only doubting of evolution, you doubt about results of the geology, and you doubt about results of astronomy and physics.
You are doubting of millions of man hours of investigations of competiting men and women - you seem indeed to construct a conspiracy theory.


@ Nitro:

I will try to get the book of James Gleick, but it is not available in Europe at the price as in America. I'm too busy until end of next week to buy it.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/12/06 15:36

You all use computers and the internet which only are there because of the same scientific methods which also get used for evolution theory. If you deny science so much it maybe would be more logical to lead a mormon lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with that! Sometimes I also would find a life without too much technology nicer.

Dan Silverman, I really hope your son will study marine biology (at a good university) and then teach you what he learned there.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/12/06 15:51

Quote:

You all use computers and the internet which only are there because of the same scientific methods which also get used for evolution theory. If you deny science so much it maybe would be more logical to lead a mormon lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with that! Sometimes I also would find a life without too much technology nicer.


Thanks for patronizing us. I couldnt hear the actual science behind your post however, I guess thats because I was too busy with my stone tools and flint trying to create fire. Next week Im thinking about trying out these various wheel designs I have been thinking of.

Why dont you try answering the questions Mr. Silverman presented instead of giving us a quick "DR.Science Man" cameo?
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/12/06 16:11

Quote:

You all use computers and the internet which only are there because of the same scientific methods which also get used for evolution theory


I thought the internet was actually here because Al Gore invented it.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/12/06 20:07

Quote:

As far as I heard within a discussion with a biologist, there is a lot discussion among biologists about the details within the evolution theory, but not about evolution in general.




The other half of biologists wouldn't listen to the creation half because evolution is generally accepted. So creation scientists have to work within the box for now.

Quote:

In your posts, Irish Farmer, your are not only doubting of evolution, you doubt about results of the geology,




I don't doubt geology, I doubt the assumptions made from the evidence.

Quote:

and you doubt about results of astronomy and physics.




Once again, I doubt the wild assumptions that are made based on shaky evidence. For now, we don't know for sure what causes red shift. Though scientists will say that stars are moving away, they say that celestial bodies that are further away have more red shift cause they're moving faster. Isn't it possible that light shifts red because it has to travel so far, and that's why bodies which are further away have more red shift? You see how the same evidence can be interpreted two different ways, and neither one has proof, but one biased opinion is called more scientific than the other?

Quote:

You are doubting of millions of man hours of investigations of competiting men and women - you seem indeed to construct a conspiracy theory.




No, it takes longer to do actual scientific work than it does to come up with assumptions based on that work. I don't doubt the work, I doubt the assumptions.

You guys obviously aren't arguing on the same level here. All you're doing is questioning our motives, while on the same token you're completely avoiding actual scientific discourse. I don't think I need to waste any more time on this.

The only real competition to evolution is creation, but we're not allowed to compete. Why is that? Evolutionists don't want competition, they just want to work with the idea that they're right. Now...I'm done for now.
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/12/06 22:03

Quote:

All you're doing is questioning our motives, while on the same token you're completely avoiding actual scientific discourse.




How could I discuss things I didn't even had time to read enough about them, and never will have time in my life to investigate them on my own.

Let's take your example of redshift as an index for speed versus as an index for distance:
my knowledge is not high enough to say anything about light waves, at least I have an analogy from our daily experience:
What can I hear when an ambulance drives past?
Sound, wether it comes from near or from far, it can change its loudness but not its wavelenght. While it changes relating the point where I'm standing when the ambulance comes in my direction and when the ambulance leaves.

Please keep in mind that this is an analogy, that means it isn't a proof, it explains only why to me the version of redshift as an indication for speed is more plausible than your suggestion that the scientists had no reason to prefer one option against the other. Saying they prefer one option against another without reason is the assumption that they don't know how to do their job.

Quote:


The only real competition to evolution is creation, but we're not allowed to compete. Why is that? Evolutionists don't want competition, they just want to work with the idea that they're right.




Creation is IMHO not a competition to any serious theory because it not even tries to stay within the conditions of a serious theory.
A 'deus ex machina' like a creator means the destruction of a consistent balance of correlating parts of that whole, that a theory should aspire to.
To carry God into science, means to objectivate him, means to reduce him to mechanisms which don't deserve the name God anymore, ... doesn't the bible say that God is inscrutable?

Quote:


"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" (Romans 11:36, 33)



Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/13/06 06:56

Quote:

How could I discuss things I didn't even had time to read enough about them, and never will have time in my life to investigate them on my own.




You've apparently had enough time to come to the conclusion that I'm a conspiracy theorist. Which I doubt you've spent more than a second on formulating.

Quote:

Sound, wether it comes from near or from far, it can change its loudness but not its wavelenght.




Except that ambulance is never millions or billions of miles away. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't make 'accurate' distances off of assumptions. We should just admit that we don't really know for sure, instead of cramming down everyone's throat that we do.

Quote:

Creation is IMHO not a competition to any serious theory because it not even tries to stay within the conditions of a serious theory.




Yes it does. It makes predictions about modern biology that we can observe in the modern world. Nearly all of its predictions come true, whereas more and more of evolution's predictions are starting to fall apart.

Quote:

A 'deus ex machina' like a creator means the destruction of a consistent balance of correlating parts of that whole, that a theory should aspire to.




Do you even know what this means?

Quote:

To carry God into science, means to objectivate him, means to reduce him to mechanisms which don't deserve the name God anymore, ... doesn't the bible say that God is inscrutable?




Oh, ok. Someone who doesn't even believe in God has outsmarted me. Doesn't the bible also say that we inheritely understand God's creation just by looking at it? I don't have time to dig up the verse because its late and my brother is getting married tomorrow. But it says it, trust me.

Evolution says that we should understand natural causes for life, which we see no evidence for.

Please, don't quote the bible to try and wedge me out of the argument. There are plenty of verses in the bible backing up my side, and it really is pointless to even consider them. They aren't proof, they're just little comments on the nature of people and how they allow themselves to be fooled into believing lies...like say...oh...evolution. God's ways are inscrutible, but is his creation? We're in it right now. He built us to understand it.

Good night! See you guys tomorrow or the day after.
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/13/06 07:34

"Someone who doesn't even believe in God has outsmarted me."

Does one need the permission of a God-believer to read the bible?
I grow up with the bible, within a christian family and a parish, the fact that I don't believe your believe doesn't mean that I didn't read the bible with the same seriousness as you.

"It makes predictions about modern biology that we can observe in the modern world. Nearly all of its predictions come true"

Have there been examples within the discussion in this thread? I must have missed them.

"Evolution says that we should understand natural causes for life, which we see no evidence for. "

Biology says, that all we CAN look for are natural causes, that's its base.


Quote:


A 'deus ex machina' like a creator means the destruction of a consistent balance of correlating parts of that whole, that a theory should aspire to.





"Do you even know what this means?"

You don't? Maybe, it is a bad grammatical construction. I should cut it down in clearer pieces. Later, when I have more time.

"I don't have time to dig up the verse [...] But it says it, trust me. "

No problem. I digged for my quote only because I didn't know wether 'inscrutable' is the right term for the word that I only know in german.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/13/06 11:35

Quote:

"It makes predictions about modern biology that we can observe in the modern world. Nearly all of its predictions come true"

Have there been examples within the discussion in this thread? I must have missed them.




Well unless they come up with more amazingly vague quotes, I doubt there are even predictions like that.

@Irish Farmer: About the dna thing, eventhough repeating patterns (that's basically what they've discovered) where found, doesn't mean it has been proven that it has a purpose at this time. It can still be simply junk, but there was definately more randomness expected. Again, what are statistics, when talking about 6 billion figures and a limited amout of different sequence fragments? The processes which formed that DNA parts are probably not so random at all, finding such small similarities wouldn't be unlogical then.

Cheers
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/13/06 12:51

... and in all this bantering I see that no one is really answering my questions. One member did by speaking of the octopus' intelligence, but that does not explain things from an evolutionary perspective. That only leaves us with the age-old question of, "Where did its intelligence come from?" The other questions were basically left alone.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/13/06 17:08

Well, basically I don't see anything in those questions that would really make an evolution unlikely or questionable. There are tons of examples of symbiotic relations between lifeforms, infact are there any that could survive without specific other species? Every animal's presence has it's effect on the foodchain. Take one or a few species out, and some others could die out pretty soon too. Those kind of relations do not need an adaptation to happen simultaneously, at least it's not a necessarily required thing. Just look at species that migrate into other areas (for example because there habitat got destroyed, or a climate change made them push on further, or something like that). Those animals will claim their territory in one way or another, or they will dissappear.
As for the tube worm, at this time it could not survive without the bacteria, but it could very well be that there wasn't always a symbiotic relation. What if at first the worm did have a mouth, anuses and means to survive on it's own? What if the bacteria came along later and the symbiotic relation grew, mutations causing the worm to loose certain features, which he didn't needed because the newly acquired benefits from the co-existing bacteria replaced them fully? We didn't know very much about that worm untill recently, but symbiotic lifeforms fit inside the evolution theory, and yes there are many more examples and all types of symbiotic relationships, some less dependant than others.

As for behavior, animals act upon their environment and off course are limited to what they can do. Simple as that. Some creatures can outswim their predators, others can hide themselves, whatever there physical features allow them to do, they will behave upon that.
Remember that the mimic octopus and octupusses in general are already very very old species, which had lots of time to develop themselves into what they are now. The mimic feature is something amazing and advanced, and I'm not sure what science thinks of it in respect to evolution, but remember eventhough we might think of it as something amazing, aren't we very subjective? Bird wings are common, why should more uncommon things disprove evolution? Besides, the feature isn't really uncommon at all. The octopus's adaptation to it's environment by mutations and natural selection over the acquired benefits could very well after a very long time cause such a species to evolve into what it's now. Also marine animals like the octopus are radically different from most land creatures, but even on land we've got species who have mimic features (more or less the same).

Quote:

Evolution must not only account for the vast variety of species on planet Earth, but must also account for the animals behaviors. For example, many animals have defensive and offensive capabilities. If evolution is true, then these abilities must also have evolved as it is certain that the original protein did not have these abilities (i.e. camoflage, mimicing other animals, etc). The basic question I have is how does evolution account for these "acquired" behaviors that many animals display.




For any behavior to occure, there's a long road of building up experience through trial and error and also mimicking others and parents. The highest chance of survival of any species, is to know how to behave best, making use off all their features to survive plays a keyrole.
Humans have eyes, when nothing went wrong in developing them during our growth and stuff, does having them make us understand how they work instantly? No definately not, it involves a learning process. Babies will learn amazingly fast, but it will take a while before they recognize and can distinguish certain things as being what they are.
Young birds will make their nest like their parents did because they see how they build them, and because lateron they will try to make them theirselves. A process of trial and error. Off course there is some gene information passed on too, but I personally think animals learn the most out of mimicking others and trial and error. There's a need for a nest? Then the creature needs to find a way to make it, wether or not it makes it in exactly the same way as their parents will have to do a lot with a.) gene info, b.) did it witness how it's parents build it and c.) his own physical abilities (clumsy? clever? strength?) and d.) the environment.
Learning to use a creature's own features to it's maximum benefit is pretty much vital for survival, natural selection would make sure that any beneficial mutation will survive and the creatures who can live with that change the best will pass on it's genes. Again, these questions are good ones, but I think it doesn't really question evolution, especially the part about behavior, there is so much that any species need to learn to be able to survive. Physical capabilities like the mimic feature will only be beneficial when creatures who have it, quickly learn how to use it.

Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/13/06 17:45



Who did this baby mimic to learn to suckle? But animals do learn to do things by mimicking behaviors, that is true.

Oh yes and happy mothers day!!!

The evolution of instinct would have to occur the way any other evolution occured, through mutation in DNA and natural selection. The evolutionist would postulate the actual instinctual "intelligence" occuring in the neurons of birds, or the primal mechanisms which propel bacteria flagellum towards food sources.

Natural selection would be the method of arriving at these species and behavior Dan has mentioned, as I already said in my first reply.

Of course HOW natural selection actually works is another question altogether, but the theory looks great when its simply accompanied with the wave of a hand. The fact that we dont even know anything about how a worms brain works fundamentally shouldnt stop anyone from believing that evolution has caused sophisticated instinct in all creatures.*sarcasm* According to the evolutionists, nothing can really falsify the theory.

Since nothing can falsify evolution, and macro-evolution is not observable, evolution is nothing but a tautology, the first US state funded religion in history, and definately not a scientific theory.

These ducks think that this guy is their mommy.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/13/06 18:18

Why are physical evolution and intelligence linked at all? A mutation which as a result affects an arm or leg, doesn't mean the being suddenly becomes stupid. Behavior, for a big part means using your brains, combined what's physically possible to do. Off course mutations and changes in intelligence happen too, and instinct could change because of that.

Quote:

The fact that we dont even know anything about how a worms brain works fundamentally shouldnt stop anyone from believing that evolution has caused sophisticated instinct in all creatures.*sarcasm* According to the evolutionists, nothing can really falsify the theory.




Like I said, we don't know much about that worm. For worms in general scientists have determined their behavior relies much on trial-and-error behavior, or at least experiments seem to suggest that. The amount of intelligence for the worm is not really relevant, it just lives for survival, take for example ants, they don't need to rely on their intelligence to survive. Sheer number and cooperation with eachother as one big 'animal', every little ant does helps in the survival of the colony. Yes, those ants must have sort of an instinct, and I do think evolution has it's effects on it. Like I said, these questions by Dan do not make evolution more or less unlikely in my opinion.

Quote:

sophisticated instinct in all creatures




Some creatures only react to direct things in their environments and don't actually need to think. An ants instinct won't be super sophisticated at all, because it doesn't rely on intelligence to survive. The only relevant part of intelligence for those kind of species would be pure being able to move around, smell and that kind of basic stuff.

By the way, as far as I know, there's not much known about the evolution of our brain, because for example it's size doesn't necesseraly indicate the amount of intelligence. For evolutionists it seems likely indeed that our brain has evolved too, and I doubt it has been constantly the same too. What other option do you suggest? *poof* and there the animal get's his instinct? LOL!

Cheers
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/13/06 19:47

PHeMoX,

In all you dribble you missed the point of my original post. I was not attempting to prove or disprove anything. That is what I said from the beginning. I simply asked how evolution accounts for the things that I brought up. It is really that simple.

These sorts of questions are important because, as I pointed out, evolution cannot only account for the development of a varieyt of species, but also for the behaviors of these same species. In other words, it is not just the different kinds of animals that we need to account for (i.e. their existance) but also their distinct behavioral patterns. There is more to a bird than he has feathers. As noted, they also build a particular kind of nest (or none at all ... in some cases). And they always build the same kind of nest. It never changes. From an evolutionary perspective, as these animals began to evolve from one kind to another, then instinctive behaviors would evolve with them. How does evolution answer these questions? How does it deal with instinct, behavioral patterns and other things that are unique to a species?

And, yes, I certainly pointed out in my original post that there are many examples of simbiotic relationships. Just because they exist does not mean they don't mean anything or that they prove or disprove anything. I was simply asking how evolution would account for these simbiotic relationships. Many of these relationships, like that of the Giant Tube Worm, are so close knit that the one cannot possibly live without the other. Not only that, but both the Giant Tube Worm and its bacteria live in a place where there is no chace for either of them to live apart from one another (i.e. there is no other "host" for the bacteria, no other bacteria for the tube worm and no way or time for either to develop another simbiotic relationship). How could this relationship have come about in evolutionary terms. Again, I am not using this to prove or disprove anything. I am simply looking for a logical answer from an evolutionary perspective.
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/13/06 21:01

Quote:

... and in all this bantering I see that no one is really answering my questions. One member did by speaking of the octopus' intelligence, but that does not explain things from an evolutionary perspective. That only leaves us with the age-old question of, "Where did its intelligence come from?" The other questions were basically left alone.




Sorry, Dan, my answers were way too short. One reason for this is that quite complicating theory of self-referential systems which is IMO quite important.
Okey, but there are other points that could be explained easier.

#1 The evolution of a species doesn't happen isolated. Their environment doesn't 'stand still'while the species are changing. The environment consists not only of geologic and climatic circumstances. That means anything in evolution develops itself within a companionship with other species, wether animals, plants, or bacterias. They develop in 'co-evolution' within an 'ecotop'.

#2 The evolution is seldom a prozess of perfectionizing or a prozess which is 'aiming' at completeness. The 'popular' sentence "surving of the fittest" is not correct. And there are evolutionists who accuse Darwin that he only stressed this sentence, because it rectified the colonization politics of the european nations at that time.
The main sentence IMO is that evolution happen within mainly two mechanism: variation and selection.
I say that evolution is seldom a prozess of perfectionizing or a prozess which is 'aiming' at completeness, that means it produces an overplus of features that are not necessary for surviving, but comes in with the development of needed abilities. Maybe, with a further change in the environment this unneeded can come in handy and give an advantage to survive. This means in addition that the known creatures are not the only possible species but that one which 'happened' to appear and got there niche in the ecotop to exist for while.


About connection of instinct and evolution in short: in the DNA is saved how a body is build up, this means it contains the information about how the nerves, neurons and "hardcoded" behaviours are build up, as well. This is part of the neurobiology whereof I don't know much.


I hope that this explains at least a bit of your questions. Tell me were you see a gap which needs further explanation.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/13/06 21:38

@Dan
Quote:

From an evolutionary perspective, as these animals began to evolve from one kind to another, then instinctive behaviors would evolve with them. How does evolution answer these questions? How does it deal with instinct, behavioral patterns and other things that are unique to a species?


I think I understand what you mean here. If a robin builds a certain nest, what would happen to that instinct if the robin evolved to a new species? I think its a good question and adds a new dimension to all of evolutionary claims. I think its interesting because every species has behavior, even bacteria have behaviorial instinct. Now not only does it add complexity to the issue of HOW evolution happens(because now new behaviors have to be coded in DNA as well as physical features), but it also forces a new way of looking at taxonomy. For example, a species might be another type if it differs in instinct-it really adds a new set of questions in every area of evolutionary theory because everywhere a species changes physically, it also must change behaviorally.

@Phemox
Quote:

Why are physical evolution and intelligence linked at all?


Well because of neurons(brain cells) if my understanding of science is correct. For evolutionary theory to be correct, the precise architecture of thought is found within the network of neurons. According to evolutionary theory, these neurons which provide instinct must be hard-coded into the genome(set of genes). As I illustrated before, if you put your finger into a baby's mouth he(she) will try to suck because of the instinct placed within him. Without the instinct, the baby would fail to understand what his mouth was for. Our understanding of the brain will not allow us to see the complexity of such a simple instinct. The brain would require millions of interconnected cells to formulate a simple suckling instinct. Evolution forces us to believe that these cells are not only brought about by random mutations, but as Dan points out that instinct must be passed along in the gene pool for evolution to be correct. What happens when an instinct from one species interferes with an instinct from a further evolved species?


Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/14/06 10:55

The evolution of instincts is indeed fascinating. Heritable instincts can evolve and change very fast - within a few generations.

I remember having read about crows. They eat walnuts that they usually drop on stones for cracking them open. Since the second half of the 20th century, crows living close to streets were observed to wait at crossings until the traffic lights turn red. Then they place nuts in front of vehicle wheels. When the lights turn green, they fly away and vehicles drive over the nuts. At the next red time the crows pick up the cracked nuts.

This is quite a complex behavior developed in a short time, not more than a century. Evolution explains this by a mutation or gene shift (= one crow develops a new hereditary instinct) followed by natural selection (= crows with this instinct have an evolutionary advantage). Of course, creationists have certainly a different explanation (= God has foreseen vehicles and traffic and made crows already with this instinct).
Posted By: jcl

Astronomy for creationists - 05/14/06 11:05

Here's the promised brief introduction into the age of the universe.

Until the 20th century, astronomers believed that the universe was eternal, unbounded and unchanging. It had no beginning and no end. This world view was shaken in 1929 when Edwin Hubble measured the spectra of distant galaxies.

Hubble observed that the spectra are shifted to the red. The darker the galaxy was, i.e. the more distant, the more its spectrum was shifted.

Hubble (wrongly) assumed that the red shift was caused by a light doppler effect due to a movement of galaxies. Some sort of central explosion must have caused all galaxies to move away from each other. The more distant a galaxy, the higher its speed. This seemed to him a simple way to calculate the distance of galaxies from their red shift... if he only knew the relation between red shift and distance!

Unfortunately, for getting that relation he needed to know first the distances of some galaxies independently of their red shift. However, in the 1930s astronomy could only directly measure the distance of close stars, up to several thousand light years, with the parallax method. There were some tricks and approximations available for star distances up to several hundred thousand light years, but no precise method to measure distances greater than a million light years.

However, the red shift has another consequence: When all galaxies are moving away from each other, there must have been a time when they all were together at the same position. The universe had a beginning. As Hubble assumed some kind of explosion, the beginning was dubbed "Big Bang".

In the 1950s with the development of the hydrogen bomb, astronomy began to understand in detail the nuclear mechanism of a sun, which is nothing else but a hydrogen bomb under gravity pressure. During its life span - our sun is 5 billion years old - a star characteristically changes its brightness and temperature depending on its initial mass. Now astronomy had a quite reliable method to calculate the distance of stars from their directly observed temperature-brightness-relation.

They found that the farthest galaxies known at that time were several billion light years away. From their speed, one could calculate that they all were close together at a point about 10 billion years ago. This was the first rough approximation of the age of the universe.

More precise distance measurements and comparisions with supernova records led to the discovery that the red shift was not caused by a doppler effect, as Hubble assumed, but by an expansion of space itself. Thus the galaxies are not moving, it's the space between them that is permanently widening. This leads to a slightly different distance-redshift relation than a Doppler effect (which is still wrongly mentioned in some school books as the cause of the red shift).

In 1950..1960, quantum electrodynamics was largely understood and allowed to calculate a model of the Big Bang. The model predicted that 400,000 years after the the Big Bang, radiation escaped from the initial dense plasma. This radiation would cool off with a predictable rate, and should still be observable today. If we only could measure it's today's temperature, we'd know precisely the date of the Big Bang and the age of the universe.

This happened 1964. Two US physicists discovered the cosmic background radiation. This was considered the final proof of the Big Bang. The background radiation has a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin, which puts the age of the universe at about 10..20 billion years.

Later, the Hubble space telescope and other advanced telecopes allowed the measurement of far galaxy distances with higher precision, especially from the analysis of supernovae. This led to the discovery that some galaxies were older than the 10 billion years assumed so far for the age of the universe. This puzzle was solved by the discovery that the universe is expanding with increasing velocity. Until then, it was believed that the expansion velocity was decreasing. The new data put the age of the universe at 13.8 (+/- 0.4) billion years.

This is the formula used today for the Distance / Red Shift relation in an accelerated expanding universe:



where D = proper distance, z = red shift, c = light speed (ca. 300,000 km/s), H0 = Hubble constant (ca. 22 km/s per light year), Omega0 = proportion of Dark and Baryonic matter in the universe (ca. 0.27) and OmegaLambda = kosmologic constant, i.e. proportion of Dark Energy in the universe (ca. 0.73).

In the 1990s the age of the universe was again calculated with a complete different method, measuring uranium isotopes. Uranium came into existence through the nuclear process in the first stars. This put the age of the universe at 14.5 (+/- 1.1) billion years.

Finally, also in the 1990s the COBE and WMAP satellites did a high precision measurement of the background radiation, resulting in 13.7 (+/- 0.2) billion years for the age of the universe.

So we have three different methods for calculating the age of the universe, all producing the same result and thus giving creationists a hard time. By the end of the 20th century, the Big Bang model and the age of the universe was accepted by all main religions (unlike evolution theory that is still not fully accepted by Islam). In 2007 the PLANCK space probe will again measure the background radiation, and is expected to determine the age of the universe with an accuracy of about +/- 50 million years.

The above stuff is from my website. If you find something unclear or wrong, please ask - I'll check and go further into details.
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/14/06 11:19

@ Nitro:

Quote:

According to evolutionary theory, these neurons which provide instinct must be hard-coded into the genome(set of genes).




This is not a speciality of evolution theory, this is part of neurobiology and medicin. Evolution theory didn't re-invent the wheel and doesn't claim that, it signs responsible for a concept which puts the obvious similarities (for instance between the mammals) of the species on history of nascencies which includes in consequence the not obvious 'similarities'(for instance bacterias and human cells).
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/14/06 11:56

@ Irish Farmer:

An important note about something, where you didn't undeerstand me, or didn't want to:
Quote:


Quote:


To carry God into science, means to objectivate him, means to reduce him to mechanisms which don't deserve the name God anymore, ... doesn't the bible say that God is inscrutable?






Oh, ok. Someone who doesn't even believe in God has outsmarted me. Doesn't the bible also say that we inheritely understand God's creation just by looking at it?




As long as you are looking at God's creation and world, making observations and theories about how everything in it is working and connected, this is not contradicting with an 'inscrutable God', it is not contradicting with the principles of scientific theory, as well.

But, and that's how understand you and creationism, if you involve God as a a creating principle within this theory, then you include God within the subject of the investigations, and this contradicts with an 'inscrutable God',
AND it contradicts with scientific theory which requires that any of its explanations are included within the theory's context, while putting a God within a theory actually claims that there are other reasons which can't be understood from the principles and their co-relations of the theory itself.

And this is what I called "deus ex machina", which is a term from theatre play writing, meaning that the story of that play doesn't allow a solution from its elements and their relations.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/14/06 15:24

Quote:

I remember having read about crows. They eat walnuts that they usually drop on stones for cracking them open. Since the second half of the 20th century, crows living close to streets were observed to wait at crossings until the traffic lights turn red. Then they place nuts in front of vehicle wheels. When the lights turn green, they fly away and vehicles drive over the nuts. At the next red time the crows pick up the cracked nuts.

This is quite a complex behavior developed in a short time, not more than a century. Evolution explains this by a mutation or gene shift (= one crow develops a new hereditary instinct) followed by natural selection (= crows with this instinct have an evolutionary advantage). Of course, creationists have certainly a different explanation (= God has foreseen vehicles and traffic and made crows already with this instinct).




Yeah, I think that's why they think evolution has no answer to the instinct problem. Besides the brain of for example birds is already complex, if they can't do something in one way, they are able to try different ways. I don't see any problems with changing instincts and evolution causing them , so I think I did answer Dan's questions, if you don't like those answers, well whatever ... . What kind of scientific answers does creationism have for behavior changes?

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/14/06 22:35

Oh man. Where to get started? I've got my hands full, but I was busy with my brother's wedding, which was absolutely great.

Anyway.

Quote:

"Someone who doesn't even believe in God has outsmarted me."

Does one need the permission of a God-believer to read the bible?
I grow up with the bible, within a christian family and a parish, the fact that I don't believe your believe doesn't mean that I didn't read the bible with the same seriousness as you.




No, but you obviously don't believe it. If you don't believe the bible, then why are you trying to use it as leverage? However, don't argue that you do believe the bible. I'm not going to get off on that tangent. Its unimportant. Bible-creationists have plenty of material on the incompatibility of evolution and christianity. Atheists also have a bunch of material on the incompatibility.

Quote:

Have there been examples within the discussion in this thread? I must have missed them.




You did miss them. If I remember correctly from skimming over the posts, I'll have to bring a couple of them up before I'm done with this post.

Quote:

Biology says, that all we CAN look for are natural causes, that's its base.




Which is why people believe the Big Bang, because we all know of the many natural processes that can cause nothing to explode into something. I know, the big bang has nothing to do with biology, but both are based on science, and apparently science is all about materialism these days.

Quote:

About the dna thing, eventhough repeating patterns (that's basically what they've discovered) where found, doesn't mean it has been proven that it has a purpose at this time.




Ok, you're right, scientists are wrong. You got me there.

Unfortunately for you, you can't claim this is speculation. This is real, observable, stuff. We don't understand it yet, but we know it has a purpose. A reason for existing, if you will (most of it).

Quote:

Every animal's presence has it's effect on the foodchain. Take one or a few species out, and some others could die out pretty soon too.




Strictly speaking, that's not a symbiotic relationship.

Quote:

As for the tube worm, at this time it could not survive without the bacteria, but it could very well be that there wasn't always a symbiotic relation. What if at first the worm did have a mouth, anuses and means to survive on it's own? What if the bacteria came along later and the symbiotic relation grew, mutations causing the worm to loose certain features, which he didn't needed because the newly acquired benefits from the co-existing bacteria replaced them fully?




I hope everyone caught what happened here. In order to give a rational explanation of how this relationship could relate to evolution he had to talk about the worm losing genetic data or specificity. That cracks me up.

Quote:

but remember eventhough we might think of it as something amazing, aren't we very subjective?




This is a copout if I ever saw one. The ability for the octopus is only amazing from the perspective of intelligence. Actually, its pretty amazing either way, but it comes with its own set of problems that I won't address here.

Quote:

For any behavior to occure, there's a long road of building up experience through trial and error and also mimicking others and parents.




Some behavior has nothing to do with trial and error. Its just programmed in. Some behavior is learned, and is limited only by the intelligence of the creature, which directly relates to the crow example, and I'll get to that later.

Quote:

b.) did it witness how it's parents build it




I hope not, because nests are preparation for the eggs. Certainly they weren't even alive when the nest was built. So this would probably be an example of pre-programmed bahavior.

Quote:

Why are physical evolution and intelligence linked at all?




Because intelligence would have had to evolve.

Quote:

A mutation which as a result affects an arm or leg, doesn't mean the being suddenly becomes stupid.




Wow.

Quote:

Like I said, we don't know much about that worm. For worms in general scientists have determined their behavior relies much on trial-and-error behavior, or at least experiments seem to suggest that. The amount of intelligence for the worm is not really relevant, it just lives for survival, take for example ants, they don't need to rely on their intelligence to survive. Sheer number and cooperation with eachother as one big 'animal', every little ant does helps in the survival of the colony. Yes, those ants must have sort of an instinct, and I do think evolution has it's effects on it. Like I said, these questions by Dan do not make evolution more or less unlikely in my opinion.




Maybe, but they certainly add to the already astronomical impossibility of evolution.

Quote:

Some creatures only react to direct things in their environments and don't actually need to think.




I'm sorry, you simply don't know this. I don't think anyone claims to know what goes on in the mind of an ant.

Quote:

The only relevant part of intelligence for those kind of species would be pure being able to move around, smell and that kind of basic stuff.




Which goes back to its central nervous system, which is what a brain is. Although ours is more sophisticated than an ant's. You can't smell without the CNS to react to the smell, you can't walk without the inclination in the CNS to do so and the ability of the CNS to tell the body to move.

Quote:

What other option do you suggest? *poof* and there the animal get's his instinct? LOL!




Isn't that kind of what happens when a person is born? They're a lump of cells, and then poof they have a human brain capable of thinking and all that fun stuff. I could 'lol' a lot of the ridiculous crap you believe, but that would get rather pointless. It would be fun though, because all you can lol is the creation. I've got a laundry list of things I can laugh at that you believe (I assume you believe).

Quote:

The evolution is seldom a prozess of perfectionizing or a prozess which is 'aiming' at completeness.




Its rather strange, then, that even in our cursed world that is pretty much all we find. Sure, there's the odd mutation that causes lost data which manages to be beneficial, but that's certainly not evolution. You have a huge problem. For a blind, random process, evolution sure has managed to do a good job of creating creatures that seem to be pretty perfect, complete, whatever you want to call it.

Don't bring up similarities. Those aren't proof of evolution, they're proof that animals are similar.

Quote:

And there are evolutionists who accuse Darwin that he only stressed this sentence, because it rectified the colonization politics of the european nations at that time.




No, he only believed it because he was ignorant. He thought that giraffes got their necks because they used to be short and they kept stretching them to reach food. He didn't know anything about genetics, so he didn't think there were mutations. Mutations are just a last ditch effort of evolutionists to save their theory. Tiny, losses of information or scrambling of genomes will never lead to anything new, because unless you can take all pressure off of animals until they're 'done changing' they'll never survive the huge gap in genomes.

Quote:

This is part of the neurobiology whereof I don't know much.




You don't have to talk about the specifics of the mind, just how it would have evolved. The evolution of the brain, and the workings of the brain are two completely seperate fields. But I don't really care.

Quote:

If a robin builds a certain nest, what would happen to that instinct if the robin evolved to a new species?




Don't you know?! Random tinkering somehow causes all of these changes to occur at once.......Or something...It doesn't really matter because: fossils!

Quote:

The evolution of instincts is indeed fascinating. Heritable instincts can evolve and change very fast - within a few generations.




I love your proof of this. I'll leave my response for your 'proof.'

Quote:

I remember having read about crows. They eat walnuts that they usually drop on stones for cracking them open. Since the second half of the 20th century, crows living close to streets were observed to wait at crossings until the traffic lights turn red. Then they place nuts in front of vehicle wheels. When the lights turn green, they fly away and vehicles drive over the nuts. At the next red time the crows pick up the cracked nuts.

This is quite a complex behavior developed in a short time, not more than a century. Evolution explains this by a mutation or gene shift (= one crow develops a new hereditary instinct) followed by natural selection (= crows with this instinct have an evolutionary advantage). Of course, creationists have certainly a different explanation (= God has foreseen vehicles and traffic and made crows already with this instinct).




Evolution explains this with mutations or gene shift? Mutations need not cause this. When I'm getting trained on how to flip burgers at McDonald's, is it because my brain is mutating? Or do I just have the natural intelligence capacity to learn how to do my job?

Yeah, crows who do this might have an advantage, but they have existed without it for how long? Do you really think that they die off just because they don't know to put a nut under a wheel?

Or is it possible that they just learned how to do it because they're intelligent.

Unless you can actually provide evidence of mutations somehow writing this behavior, I'll stick with a real, scientific explanation.

It is strange to note that monkeys really aren't that close to us in behavior. They tend to have sex with many, many partners naturally whereas a lot of birds pick one partner for life. Birds are probably some of the closest to us in intelligence. Some birds have an english vocabulary of about 2000 words! Monkeys scratch their anus with their finger nails and pee into their mouths.

Birds can fashion their own tools, use more elaborate tools, and use more logic than monkeys can. We must have evolved from birds........

Now, since monkeys are a lot closer in DNA to our 'ancestors', that means that our larger difference is filled with mutations that are neutral. In other words, if a broken down human can survive just as well, where is natural selection in all of this? This is a problem for evolutionists, but there is no disregarding the theory, so we'll just have to wait until they find a way to make the data fit the theory....again.

Quote:

Hubble observed that the spectra are shifted to the red. The darker the galaxy was, i.e. the more distant, the more its spectrum was shifted.




How did they know the star isn't just less bright, smaller, etc?

Quote:

When all galaxies are moving away from each other, there must have been a time when they all were together at the same position.




A gigantic assumption. For all you know, they've only been moving away from each other for 6000 years. If I see a car driving east past my house, I'm not going to just say, "Oh, it MUST have driven all the way from the west coast." I don't know where it started.

Quote:

The universe had a beginning.




Clearly.

Quote:

Now astronomy had a quite reliable method to calculate the distance of stars from their directly observed temperature-brightness-relation.




How do they know, without making a few correlations or assumptions, what the temperature of an object billions of lightyears away is? How do they know what the 'initial mass' is?

Quote:

More precise distance measurements and comparisions with supernova records led to the discovery that the red shift was not caused by a doppler effect, as Hubble assumed, but by an expansion of space itself.




We've seen space expanding? Or did this assumption just make more sense within the frame of the theory?

Quote:

This happened 1964. Two US physicists discovered the cosmic background radiation. This was considered the final proof of the Big Bang. The background radiation has a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin, which puts the age of the universe at about 10..20 billion years.




Except it was decided that the big bang would produce variations in this temperature, and lo and behold they found variations (certain 'tropics' if you will). So how do we know what temperature to base this off of?

The one that fits the age of the universe best?

Again, this is another one of those assumptions that the cooling of the universe is proof of anything other than that the universe is cooling. Unless you can point something out, it could just have arrived at this temperature after 6000 years of existence.

Quote:

This led to the discovery that some galaxies were older than the 10 billion years assumed so far for the age of the universe. This puzzle was solved by the discovery that the universe is expanding with increasing velocity.




Expanding faster because if they aren't then the theory is bunk? Or because we have proof. Why did we only find this proof after the evidence contradicted the theory?

Quote:

In the 1990s the age of the universe was again calculated with a complete different method, measuring uranium isotopes. Uranium came into existence through the nuclear process in the first stars. This put the age of the universe at 14.5 (+/- 1.1) billion years.




See what I mean. You can come up with all sorts of answers if you come up with assumptions first. You have to assume the way that uranium was created.

Quote:

So we have three different methods for calculating the age of the universe, all producing the same result and thus giving creationists a hard time.




I'm not too worried about it. If you can only prove your theory by first assuming that its true, then that's pretty bunk. But I look forward to persuing this line of discussion.

Quote:

his is not a speciality of evolution theory, this is part of neurobiology and medicin.




Neurobiology doesn't study the evolution of the brain. It just studies the brain. Evolution speculates as to how that brain evolved. So its not reinventing the wheel, its looking at the wheel from a different perspective. So, you can't avoid this one, and neither can evolution.

Quote:

it signs responsible for a concept which puts the obvious similarities (for instance between the mammals)




You'd like to stay within this line of thought because its more comfortable to point out that animals are similar, than wonder how, within reason, evolution could possibly account for behavior and appearance.

Its also fun to focus on the similarities between mammals, than say the huge differences. Some live on land, some in water. Some walk, others have wings. Some walk and glide. Some lay eggs, some don't. Some are parasitic, some aren't. Some are venomous, some aren't. Some have duck-like bills, some don't. Some are nocturnal, some aren't (I've love someone to explain the evolution of nocturnal animals). I could go on and on. Its interesting to note that mammals have a species (or many species) to represent most of the major physical attributes of all animals, and a lot of the non-physical attributes. Excluding some of the more exotic ones like exoskeletons which by their nature exclude mammals.

That doesn't disprove evolution, but the point is that you find all kinds of variety in life. That doesn't make any speculation on animals more or less true.

Quote:

As long as you are looking at God's creation and world, making observations and theories about how everything in it is working and connected, this is not contradicting with an 'inscrutable God', it is not contradicting with the principles of scientific theory, as well.




It is if you do it without proof, and only assumptions.

'But animals really are similar!' I can't imagine you would have any other response.

Quote:

then you include God within the subject of the investigations, and this contradicts with an 'inscrutable God',




Ok, if that verse uses the word 'inscrutable' then we have to take a look at the meaning of the word, and exactly what we're doing. Scrutiny is kind of like examining, or studying something. If we're scrutinizing God's creation, are we scrutinizing Him? I don't see where you're making the connection. This is what I meant when I say the bible says we were given a mind to understand His creation. He wants us to KNOW and ENJOY His creation. He also wants us to KNOW and ENJOY Him, but we can't just pull Him out of the sky and put Him under a microscope. So I fail to see the contradiction between creationism and the bible.

Quote:

it contradicts with scientific theory which requires that any of its explanations are included within the theory's context,




If animals can't change beyond their originally programmed limits, and if mutations simply cause errors which aren't necessarily deleterious, then that fits within the mold of creation and debunks evolution. And yet nowhere in there did I pull God out of the sky to come to these conclusions , we just performed experiments, etc.. We observed His creation. Evolutionists fail to admit these two things because they're opposed to their theory, but its still true.

Quote:

while putting a God within a theory actually claims that there are other reasons which can't be understood from the principles and their co-relations of the theory itself.




Its a good thing no one does that. Creationism says that biology matches up with the account from the bible. That animals produce after their kind. This is what we see. Creationism predicts (outside the bible which never approached the subject) that mutations could never hope to even come close to writing a new kind of animal. This is what we see. These line up with what the bible says. Whereas, your invisible, and unobservable (magical) changes are being inserted into good science, I have the courtesy to keep God out of science because I know I can keep him out without contradicting His word. You have to add your god in just so that your theory makes sense. Neither of our deities are observable (per se), but at least mine makes sense in the context of science.

Quote:

I don't see any problems with changing instincts and evolution causing them




Did you ever think that if bird's brains were evolving that rapidly (in the context of random mutations), that we would see birds in confusion, or absolutely mentally retarded, or unable to function normally, more than we would see these 'good' behaviors being evolved? You guys seem to forget that brains have the wonderful ability to learn, and that this doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Evolutionists say this all the time, "Mutations are mostly bad." So where are all the bad mutations? Surely, if it happened this quick we would still be able to observe the deleterious ones. We're back to Darwin's problem. Why is all of nature not a mass of confusion?
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/14/06 23:25

@all
I have to bow out of the conversation for a week or so as I am going out of town on business. I doubt I will even have time to read the posts, let alone reply to them.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 01:01

Quote:

Did you ever think that if bird's brains were evolving that rapidly (in the context of random mutations), that we would see birds in confusion, or absolutely mentally retarded, or unable to function normally, more than we would see these 'good' behaviors being evolved? You guys seem to forget that brains have the wonderful ability to learn, and that this doesn't have anything to do with evolution.




What are you trying to say?
There are definately retarded birds, and they have a very small chance of survival, it's not only obvious, it's observable too. Syndroms, similar to the Syndrom of Down, appear amongst animals too.
Your so caught up in your own thoughts here, that you seem to have missed a lot of points I made. Anyways, YES, the brain's development, like I said already, can be apart from physical evolution. It's not like a mutation affecting a toe's growth suddenly makes the brain's development go nuts! You 'attacked' something I never stated, nor did anyone else. A mutation could cause the brain to be able to learn more or less, intelligence. But mutations can also destroy/change information, the pre-programmed behavior parts.

Quote:

Evolution explains this with mutations or gene shift? Mutations need not cause this. When I'm getting trained on how to flip burgers at McDonald's, is it because my brain is mutating? Or do I just have the natural intelligence capacity to learn how to do my job?




That capacity can change too because of mutations, I already adressed this when replying to Dan's questions earlier. Behavior and physical evolution are only indirectly linked. Off course a creature needs to have the capacity to be able to learn to cope with it's body effected by mutations.

Quote:

I hope everyone caught what happened here. In order to give a rational explanation of how this relationship could relate to evolution he had to talk about the worm losing genetic data or specificity. That cracks me up.




That's because you believe in creationism.
Laughing away my argument of the animal losing genetic data might be tempting for you, we all know that and feel very sorry for you too.
Symbiotic relationships have to grow, they can not be instantly there at all. We all know creatures doesn't simply *poof* appear, they need to be born first, and even before that some parents need to go nuts, or some other method of reproduction has to take place. Symbiotic or not fully dependant on eachother, even those relationships would need to grow by means of evolution. Therefore I came up with the 'lost genetic data/mutation' explanation indeed. It's still a chicken and egg 'who was first' kind of thing, as in who adapted to who, but I'm confident the most rational explanation would be the one I've stated before.

Quote:

This is a copout if I ever saw one. The ability for the octopus is only amazing from the perspective of intelligence. Actually, its pretty amazing either way, but it comes with its own set of problems that I won't address here.




Which set of problems? Intelligence-wise, it's just a matter of the species who can use it's physical abilities best, and who survives and will pass on it's genetic data. I don't see how that can be problematic. Even if it would require an amount of intelligence, or instinct or reflexes or whatever, the creatures in the past who were able to use their abilities the best would survive. Yes, mutations could have influenced this, why not?
Not every lion can hunt super efficient, there brain might not be up for the task. Mutated or not, if he's not able to catch enough preys to survive, selection will take place.

Quote:


Ok, you're right, scientists are wrong. You got me there.

Unfortunately for you, you can't claim this is speculation. This is real, observable, stuff. We don't understand it yet, but we know it has a purpose. A reason for existing, if you will (most of it).




The only thing observable, are the repeating patterns. That says exactly nothing about it's purpose, at least at the moment. Only the fact that there have been patterns found in junk dna, might suggest it's more than just junk.

Quote:

I hope not, because nests are preparation for the eggs. Certainly they weren't even alive when the nest was built. So this would probably be an example of pre-programmed bahavior.




Yes, so you say that baby birds never ever see the nests they grow up in to start with? Oww wait, you must be one of those people who believe there first were eggs.
Pre-programmed, yes I do believe part of it must be pre-programmed, but I think by far most behavior is the result of trial and error and mimics. A small part would be pre-progammed instinct or the ability using logic.
Would we know how to build a house, just by knowing it's 'pre-programmed' concept? No, that's ridiculous to think. We would need to use logic, take efficient use of our environment and there would most definately be trial-and-error involved. I don't think birds building a nest goes very different, they are not robots you know.

Quote:

Because intelligence would have had to evolve.




And still there is no need for a direct link between physical evolution and the evolution of the brain. If there's a sufficient amount of intelligence, there's no 100% need for it to evolve in order to make physical new acquired features possible to use. Species who did evolve having additional intelligence, would again have a greater chance of passing on their genes.

Quote:

I'm sorry, you simply don't know this. I don't think anyone claims to know what goes on in the mind of an ant.




We know more about it then you seem to suggest. There are lots of not so complex animals simply reacting to their environment, reacting on impulses triggering the appropriate behavior. I'm not talking about what may or may not go on in the minds of those animals, I'm talking about observed behavior. There are tons of experiments done which do indicate for example worms rely heavily on trial and error behavior, otherwise they would not make the same stupid mistakes over and over again, seemingly random.

Quote:

Which goes back to its central nervous system, which is what a brain is. Although ours is more sophisticated than an ant's. You can't smell without the CNS to react to the smell, you can't walk without the inclination in the CNS to do so and the ability of the CNS to tell the body to move.




Yes, which is exactly why scientists believe those kind of basic functions were developed in a very very early stage of evolution. Just like eyes, which were at first, simply cells sensitive to light and evolved into what most species have now.
By the way, let's say a nose is there, fully functional and physically already evolved to a simple 'can smell something' body part, but there's no reaction on the impulses it gives, the nose might be neutral or not negative to a species survival. What if because of mutations the animal did become sensitive to what the nose smells? It could have been beneficial for survival because of the reaction on what it can smell, and there goes evolution again. I'm sure the nose's evolution, is as complicated as the eye's was, but it probably has started not as complex as it is now.

Quote:

Now, since monkeys are a lot closer in DNA to our 'ancestors', that means that our larger difference is filled with mutations that are neutral. In other words, if a broken down human can survive just as well, where is natural selection in all of this? This is a problem for evolutionists, but there is no disregarding the theory, so we'll just have to wait until they find a way to make the data fit the theory....again.




I'm not sure what you mean. Broken down human? Mostly we are able to do more than monkeys can do. On average we are more intelligent, we've adapted to a different environment, walking upright, stuff like that. Why should most of our different genes indicate they would have been neutral for survival? I think it's quite the contrary, those differences were positive for survival. What we have in common, that's what's either neutral or vital for survival, like specific organs or eyes or ears. That's definately the biggest part of what we have in common, our anatomy and basic structure/content. Change those and it would be negative for survival, that's why we still have very much in common.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 02:35

Quote:

What are you trying to say?
There are definately retarded birds, and they have a very small chance of survival, it's not only obvious, it's observable too. Syndroms, similar to the Syndrom of Down, appear amongst animals too.
Your so caught up in your own thoughts here, that you seem to have missed a lot of points I made.




No. You missed the point I made. Let's assume that somehow mutations can 'write' more intelligence. If it does happen as quickly as these crows needed to adapt to stop lights and all of that, then we should constantly be finding birds that are deleterious.

Since most mutations would be deleterious this is what we should find. Instead, its a very rare occurance to even find negative mutations. These birds just had the capacity to learn. It had nothing to do with evolution.

Quote:

It's not like a mutation affecting a toe's growth suddenly makes the brain's development go nuts!




This has nothing to do with what I said. I don't even get where you're getting this from. Furthermore, what does it have to do with anything that anyone has said so far. Please, point out to me where I said a toe mutation would cause birds to lose intelligence.

Quote:

hat capacity can change too because of mutations, I already adressed this when replying to Dan's questions earlier. Behavior and physical evolution are only indirectly linked.




Nope. There's a direct link. If I sprout legs, but I don't know how to use them, the data won't become dominant. If I learn how to use legs, but haven't sprouted any, then the data won't become dominant. They both have to happen randomly and at the same time.

Quote:

Laughing away my argument of the animal losing genetic data might be tempting for you, we all know that and feel very sorry for you too.




Wow, man. You are so twisted backwards you wouldn't know logic if it stuck a knife down your eye socket.

I'll quote Kent Hovind, because he makes a great point about what you're trying to say here. On the topic of losing organs as proof of evolution:

"Yes kids, we're losing all these things, that's how we got 'em."

Do you see the problem. If I lose my arms, and my hair, and my legs, and my eyes, and my ears, and my nose, what have I evolved into? That's devolution (yes, it does exist), and you're using that to explain how this worm could have evolved. That's why I'm laughing. And now I'm laughing harder.

Quote:

We all know creatures doesn't simply *poof* appear, they need to be born first




But I'm assuming that you believe in the spontaneous generation of life.

Quote:

but I'm confident the most rational explanation would be the one I've stated before.




Yes! That is the most rational explanation! But its not evolution, that's why its so funny. In order to explain how it could have evolved, you gave an example of the opposite of evolution.

Quote:

The only thing observable, are the repeating patterns. That says exactly nothing about it's purpose, at least at the moment. Only the fact that there have been patterns found in junk dna, might suggest it's more than just junk.




You yourself referenced a quote giving an instance where its useful. Are you honestly this blind? They say it aids in transcription, an absolutely essential process of our genetic material has (just one of its many purposes). It has a role. I'm not going to keep arguing this point. Pattern or no pattern doesn't matter.

Quote:

Yes, so you say that baby birds never ever see the nests they grow up in to start with? Oww wait, you must be one of those people who believe there first were eggs.




They don't see the nest get built. That's the point. They would need to see how its done. Just because I see skyscrapers while I drive past them doesn't mean I have any idea how to build one.

But, I'll concede the point because it really doesn't matter if birds learn it or not.

Quote:

If there's a sufficient amount of intelligence, there's no 100% need for it to evolve in order to make physical new acquired features possible to use.




Yeah, actually the limb needs to grow the nerves, the muscles, the skeletal structure, and those nerves need to link back to its central nervous system, which then needs to know how to operate the limb. There's a direct link. If I added a third arm onto your shoulder, even if it was complete, your brain wouldn't know how to use it because its not built to use it.

Quote:

There are tons of experiments done which do indicate for example worms rely heavily on trial and error behavior, otherwise they would not make the same stupid mistakes over and over again, seemingly random.




I'm saying that not all behavior is learned. Some is, some isn't.

Does that make you uncomfortable or something? I don't get what your objection to this is.

Quote:

By the way, let's say a nose is there, fully functional and physically already evolved to a simple 'can smell something' body part, but there's no reaction on the impulses it gives, the nose might be neutral or not negative to a species survival. What if because of mutations the animal did become sensitive to what the nose smells?




How would the nose get built, little by little, if it has no apparent function? It would never take over in the gene pool. Now, the behavior has the same problem. How would it take over if it has no purpose? The ONLY way this works is if both mutations happen at the same time (little by little which compounds on the problem). Maybe once, or maybe even five times (although that's being generous). But I don't see how you could possibly tell me this could happen millions of times in the history of the earth? You can never laugh at anything I believe again, because that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Besides, mutations can't write new information, so the nose wouldn't even appear, nor would the ability use it.
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 03:44

Just to add a little "fuel to the fire": if you separate a Robin's egg from its nest, hatch it in an incubater and never allow it to experience growing up in a Robin's nest of its very own, when that grown bird is released into the wild it will build a Robin's nest. So it is obvious that the kinds of nests birds build have nothing to do with having "seen them" as they hatched from their eggs and grew. You could raise a Robin in a Blue Jay's nest and that Robin will go and build a Robin's nest when it is nesting time. This is instinct and instinct had to have come from somewhere. Since some here are stating that evolution is the means by which we now have such a variety of species and since many of these species have instincts (i.e. non-learned behavior) then these instincts must also come about by evolutionary means. The question, as asked previously, is by which evolutionary means could this information have come about originally?

As has been pointed out, mutations (harmful or beneficial) do not add new information to the any creature. They only lose information. Therefore how did the Robin gain this information to build only the Robin's nest? If we all (meaning: man, birds, lizards, fish, etc) started in the same slime pool (or deep ocean floor near a vent or "name your origin theory and place here") from the same spontaneously formed proteins then it seems obvious that these proteins did not come into existance with the instinct or ability to build any kind of nest, let alone any of the specific bird nests that exist today. The instinctual ability to build a specific bird's nest would then be ADDITIONAL informaion that the original protein(s) did not have. This additional information had to come from somewhere. Since neither harmful nor beneficial mutations add information then where did the information come from?

While some here may argue that instinct is not in the realm of evolution I would obviously disagree. As stated from the beginning, evolution must account for more then the various species that inhabit planet Earth (i.e. the physical form of the creature). It must also explain the evolution of instinct (unlearned behavior) and even the ability to learn (since this is, in itself, additional information that the original protein would not have had). This leads us even to the evolution of conscienceness (sp? ... sorry ... I am tired ). The original protein could not have had human thinking. Therefore, according to evolutionary thinking, this too had to have come about by evolutionary processess. What processes in evolution could create human reasoning or even emotions?

As usual, I am not proving or disproving anything. Please note my utter lack of personal attacks on anyone or the lack of "lol". I am simply looking for a decent evolutionary explaination for things of this nature.

By the way, the birds placing nuts where wheels would drive is interesting, but it does not provide an answer to the question. It shows the birds have a form of intelligence and that they can learn, but we all knew that. What we then have to ask is where did these birds get the ability to reason out the puzzle of placing the nut where the wheel would roll? And, as we can see, we are back to my original question instead of at an answer.

As a side note, while in Israel we had these medium sized green parrots that lived in the north. They would take nuts from off the trees near our home and crack them with rocks. They would pick up a rock in their mouths and smash at the nut until it cracked open and then they would eat. It was a lot of fun to watch.
Posted By: Locoweed

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 04:45

I just mutated.

Loco
Posted By: Locoweed

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 05:11

Wow, it happenned again. Double mutation. Checking radiation levels in the house. Seems a bit weird, two mutations in one night.

Loco
Posted By: jcl

Re: Astronomy for creationists - 05/15/06 08:48

Quote:

However, don't argue that you do believe the bible. I'm not going to get off on that tangent. Its unimportant. Bible-creationists have plenty of material on the incompatibility of evolution and christianity. Atheists also have a bunch of material on the incompatibility.




No, atheists have no problem with the bible. You can interpret the bible in two ways:

a) Religious interpretation: The bible is a book of parables that contain a deeper wisdom.

b) Superstitious interpretation: The bible is a book of miracle stories that literally happened.

The normal Christian approach is a), therefore Christianity has no problem with science and evolution. On the contrary, I was even told in my Christian education that the bible supports the Big Bang and the Evolution theories. ("Let there be light" - that's the Big Bang. "God separated the light from the darkness" - that's the background radiation. If you want.).

Some Christian sects however interpret the bible as in b). As we've seen in this thread, that gets you indeed into a lot of problems with science and the scientific observations in our world in general - not only in evolution.

Quote:

When I'm getting trained on how to flip burgers at McDonald's, is it because my brain is mutating? Or do I just have the natural intelligence capacity to learn how to do my job?

Yeah, crows who do this might have an advantage, but they have existed without it for how long? Do you really think that they die off just because they don't know to put a nut under a wheel?

Or is it possible that they just learned how to do it because they're intelligent.




I hope your brain did not mutate on your burger job - although I've heard that awful things can happen on burger jobs, like losing your finger.

Biology normally attributes seemingly intelligent animal behavior to instinct. Thus I do not think that crows understand vehicles and traffic lights. If that were the case, they'd developed that behavior as soon as traffic lights were invented - but it was observed only sice 20 years.

Quote:

How did they know the star isn't just less bright, smaller, etc?




They didn't. At the beginning of the 20th century they just knew the average brightness of a galaxy, and had a rough estimate of the distances of close galaxies (Andromeda). Thus they could tell wich galaxy was close and which one was distant, but did not know much about their absolute distances.

Quote:

A gigantic assumption. For all you know, they've only been moving away from each other for 6000 years. If I see a car driving east past my house, I'm not going to just say, "Oh, it MUST have driven all the way from the west coast." I don't know where it started.




Even the bible does not claim that God gave galaxies a gas pedal.

If you observe a stone flying through the air, and know the law of gravity, you can precisely calculate from which place it was thrown. Besides, if galaxies indeed miraculously started their movement 6000 years ago, we would not see them move at all. Remember, light speed is finite and thus what we're seeing from galaxies happened a long time ago.

Quote:

How do they know, without making a few correlations or assumptions, what the temperature of an object billions of lightyears away is? How do they know what the 'initial mass' is?




The temperature can be derived from its color (blue = hot, red = cold). Every temperature is related to a certain mass and brightness. Thus, if you know a star's temperature, you also know it's true brighness, and when you compare this with its brightness in your telescope, you have its distance. There are a couple twists to this, but this is basically the method.

Quote:

We've seen space expanding? Or did this assumption just make more sense within the frame of the theory?




This assumption made more sense within the frame of the observations.

Quote:

Except it was decided that the big bang would produce variations in this temperature, and lo and behold they found variations (certain 'tropics' if you will). So how do we know what temperature to base this off of?





Not variations, but fluctuations.



The 2.7 Kelvin is the average temperature. The fluctuations in the above image are in the 0.1% range and contain information about the geometry of the universe.

Quote:

Expanding faster because if they aren't then the theory is bunk? Or because we have proof. Why did we only find this proof after the evidence contradicted the theory?




A scientific theory can not be proven, only falsified. In this case the linear expansion theory was falsified by the observations. Later the accelerated expansion theory was developed, which explains the observations.

Quote:

See what I mean. You can come up with all sorts of answers if you come up with assumptions first. You have to assume the way that uranium was created.




Yes, but if you have otherwise information you should urgently call the Pentagon and tell them that all their hydrogen bombs won't work. Uranium creation by nuclear processes in stars is based on standard nuclear physics.

I hope this makes the age of the universe issue a little more clear. If you still have questions, just ask.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 09:17

Quote:

Just to add a little "fuel to the fire": if you separate a Robin's egg from its nest, hatch it in an incubater and never allow it to experience growing up in a Robin's nest of its very own, when that grown bird is released into the wild it will build a Robin's nest. (...) The question, as asked previously, is by which evolutionary means could this information have come about originally?




Just like the crows example. A mutation leads to a change in behavior. If this change of behavior offers a reproduction advantage, it gets preferred by natural selection and replaces the old behavior.

Early birds probably didn't have nests, but hatched their eggs on the ground. Later birds built nests on the ground, and this eventually evolved into building more sophisticated nests in trees.

Quote:

As has been pointed out, mutations (harmful or beneficial) do not add new information to the any creature.




Yes, this is the basic creationist belief, but as they failed so far to give any proof for this other than their faith, I consider this belief unfounded.

Simple math tells you that a random mutation mostly is information neutral, but sometimes adds information ("alleles") to the gene pool. This usually happens when a changed DNA sequence codes a different proteine with a new property that didn't exist before. There are many examples (which are however all disputed by creationists) of the development of new alleles not only within millions of years, but even within our lifetime. If you read all of this thread you'll find some of them - antibiotics resistence, temperature resistence, Milano mutation, etc, and maybe even crow behavior.

Quote:


While some here may argue that instinct is not in the realm of evolution I would obviously disagree. As stated from the beginning, evolution must account for more then the various species that inhabit planet Earth (i.e. the physical form of the creature). It must also explain the evolution of instinct (unlearned behavior) and even the ability to learn (since this is, in itself, additional information that the original protein would not have had). This leads us even to the evolution of conscienceness (sp? ... sorry ... I am tired ). The original protein could not have had human thinking. Therefore, according to evolutionary thinking, this too had to have come about by evolutionary processess.




I agree. But science can not yet answer the question about how consciousness works, let alone how it developed. The materialist view is that a complex enough brain automatically develops consciousness.

Quote:

What we then have to ask is where did these birds get the ability to reason out the puzzle of placing the nut where the wheel would roll?




I don't know whether there has been research into this. My guess: A bird aquired the behavior to drop the nut on the street instead of rock. This gave him an advantage when he lived close to traffic lights, thus this behavior spread. Further mutations let the birds only drop the nut in certain situtions, i.e. when the traffic stopped, and only in front of the wheels. Learning probably was also involved - for instance, pick up the nuts only when the traffic wasn't going.
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 18:18

Hi JCL,

Thank you for your thoughts on all of this. Here are a few of mine as well:

Quote:

You can interpret the bible in two ways:

a) Religious interpretation: The bible is a book of parables that contain a deeper wisdom.

b) Superstitious interpretation: The bible is a book of miracle stories that literally happened.




Frankly, I do not like these classifications. The reason being is that the second one places people who believe this way in the realm of being superstitious, which is often looked at as being primitive. This may not be the case at all. I would much rather prefer the following two classifications:

a) literal interpretation: Taking the Bible at face value in most cases
b) non-literal interpretation: Alegorizing the Bible in many cases

I take a literal approach to interpreting Scripture and I will attempt to tell you why. I will also tell you that this approach has nothing to do with believing the Bible to be true or not. I believe this is a very important point.

Words have meanings and it is wrong to place meaning on words and/or phrases that the words/phrases do not necessarily carry. For example, if my wife says, "I love you!" I would be wrong to imply that she means that she believes a frog will cross the road lugging an AK-47 loaded with nuclear tipped bullets (obviously, I am being overly silly in this example ). Instead, unless I have reason to believe otherwise, I am forced to conclude that her words mean simply what she stated. I bring this up because of this statement of yours:

Quote:

I was even told in my Christian education that the bible supports the Big Bang and the Evolution theories. ("Let there be light" - that's the Big Bang. "God separated the light from the darkness" - that's the background radiation. If you want.).




I look at the words "And God said, Let there be light." and I get this from it: God made a statement. His statement was "Let there be light" and the end result was light. Please note that I am not stating whether I believe this statement to be true or not. I am also not stating that anyone else should or should not believe that this is how light came into existance. What I am stating is that this is what the words say and therefore I should take them at that meaning no matter what I believe.

I suppose that what I am trying to say is that we should treat the Bible in the same manner that any other ancient document (or modern, for that matter) is treated. In other words, we read the words and take them for what they are. This has nothing to do with believing those words to be true or not, but we should not twist any document simply because we don't believe what it states or agree with its message. We may find an ancient text that gives details about the life of some ancient king. It may contradict what other ancient texts state about the same individual. But we do not change the meaning of the words of any of these texts. Instead, based on whatever evidence there is, we make a decision to believe the document or not. This should be how the Bible is approached as well. The words are often simple ("In the beginning God created ...") and therefore do not even lend themselves to another meaning. I contend that the Bible plainly teaches that God created the heavens and the earth and that it teaches that He did so via his word (i.e. "He said"). Someone may not believe that at all. That is fine. Do not change the text to read as you like simply because someone does not believe it.

Quote:

The normal Christian approach is a), therefore Christianity has no problem with science and evolution.

Some Christian sects however interpret the bible as in b). As we've seen in this thread, that gets you indeed into a lot of problems with science and the scientific observations in our world in general - not only in evolution.




Even the "not normal" Christian does not have problems with science . This idea is a total misunderstanding. What many Christians have a problem with is certain ideas or theories within science, not science itself. It is false to say a Christian has problems with science because he or she has problems with evolution. It simply means they have problems with the concept of evolution as they interpret the data, not with science. It would be nice if we were to keep these distinctions clear. There are many scientists themselves that are indeed creation scientists:

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list does idoes not indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)

* Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

* Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

* Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]

* Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]

* Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

* Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

* Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]

* Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

* Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

* David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

* Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]

* Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]

* Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

* Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

* Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]

* Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

* Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

* Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]

* Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

* Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]

* Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

* John Grebe (chemist) [more info]

* Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

* William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

* George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]

* D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]

* James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

* Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

* John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

* Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]

* Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]

* Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

* Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

* Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]

* Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

* James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

* Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

* Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

* Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

* Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]

* Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

* Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

* William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

* John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

* Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

* Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

* James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

* Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

* George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

* Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]

* William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

* Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]

* Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

* Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

* A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

* A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]

* John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

Each of the above individuals holds a doctorate in a science related field.

Here is an interesting quote from Science Digest(Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.):

Quote:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.




I give this list and the above quote only to support my concept that Christians and religious people who hold to a creationist view do not have problems with science, but with certain concepts and theories accepted within science itself.

Quote:

If you observe a stone flying through the air, and know the law of gravity, you can precisely calculate from which place it was thrown.




Actually, no. This is not correct. You would need to know at least the original amount of energy put into the stone (the original velocity of the stone). Without knowing this you cannot accurately determine the starting place of the stone's throw. For example, if a kid throws a stone and you only see it just before it hits the ground (i.e. at the point where the force of gravity is overtaking the inertia of the stone) or if someone fired the stone from a sling shot (more initial inertia) and you see it at the point just before it hits the ground then you are only seeing the stone (in both cases) with approx. the same amount of energy. You cannot therefore know from how far the stone was thrown or shot. There are just too many variables in this situation.

Quote:

Just like the crows example. A mutation leads to a change in behavior.




You state this as fact. Do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim?

Quote:

Early birds probably didn't have nests, but hatched their eggs on the ground. Later birds built nests on the ground, and this eventually evolved into building more sophisticated nests in trees.




This is quite an assumption and it is an assumption based purely on evolutionary thought, but it is an assumption that is not based on observation. Observation is a key to science. We come up with ideas and test them and then observe the results. We then modify our ideas best on what we observe. This is basic science.

If we study birds and their nesting habits then we find that some birds certainly nest on the ground, some in the rocks and some in trees, etc. What we do not observe is a type of bird nesting on the ground suddenly (or even gradually) nesting in the trees. For generation after generation the same type of bird nests in the same way without deviation. This observation would indicate that birds did not all begin nesting on the ground and then evolve into tree nesting animals. Instead, this observation would lend itself to the idea that a Robin has always built its nest in the same manner. This observation is further solidified by tests we can do (i.e. hatching a Robin egg in an incubator and then, when grown, observing the same bird build a Robin nest, etc). I would think that scientific observation would lead us to different conclusions then your "probability".

Quote:

Yes, this is the basic creationist belief, but as they failed so far to give any proof for this other than their faith, I consider this belief unfounded.




It has nothing to do with a "creationist belief". It has to do with science. Do we have evidence of a random mutation adding information? What scientific evidence of this kind do we have? On the other hand it has certainly been observed that random mutations can decrease or take away information.

Quote:

Simple math tells you that a random mutation mostly is information neutral, but sometimes adds information ("alleles") to the gene pool. This usually happens when a changed DNA sequence codes a different proteine with a new property that didn't exist before.




I am sure you have heard the old phrase, "You can't get something from nothing!" How can a mutation (and a random one at that) add information that was not there before? I could understand a re-aranging of information already present and/or the loss of information resulting in differing behaviors, but not something completely new added. For example, if you take away one of a dog's legs so that he only has three then he has lost something, but behaves a bit differently than other dogs. No new genetic code has been added, but the behavior has changed a bit to compensate.

I think an example that we can understand is the breading of dogs. It is clear that all dogs, no matter their size, come from wolves somewhere along the line. When we breed dogs we are not breeding IN new information in order to make a poodle or a Great Dane. Instead, we are actually breeding OUT undesirable traits in order to keep only the traits we want. As a result, while it seems many of these dogs (pure breads) aquire new traits in actuality they do not. In fact, pure bread dogs tend to have a lot of physical problems (heart problems, respritory problems, etc) ... problems that their cousins, the wolves, do not exibit. These problems stem from a loss of information, not a gain. And the benefits (greater speed, larger bodies, longer ears, etc) are not a result of new genetic information gained, but by information being lost thus allowing other traits (traits that were already in the gene code) to dominate. It could very well be possible that random mutations could cause a loss of information that could cause recessive data to dominate where once they did not and this is what we are observing as "new" data.

Many, many years ago scientists would observe a piece of cloth in a jar and later see worms in the jar with the cloth. Based on this observation they would conclude that the worms came from the cloth or that life came from non-life. Today we laugh at such an idea and, yet, these ideas that new information comes into existance via random mutations sounds very much like it. We see the cloth and later worms. We see the animal and then a new behavior. I am certain I am not making my point very clearly, but I am guessing we will one day look back and laugh at this notion of mutations creating new information.

Quote:

The materialist view is that a complex enough brain automatically develops consciousness.




And based on this we feel that if we simply make a complex enough machine it will eventually develop a consciousness as well. This is, after all, the stated goal of computing ... to create an artifically intelligent and self-aware machine. But this is an interesting thing to me. Whether we will ever achieve a true artificial intelligence or not is not what I want to debate here. But there is something to see in this process. These machines, if they ever develop a conscious, will not do it alone. It will happen because mankind worked toward this goal. The machine may or may not turn out as we expect, but we will have had our hand in its beginnings. Consciousness will come from unconsciousness by the guiding hand of man (in this case) ... it will not come about by random chance.

Quote:

Further mutations let the birds only drop the nut in certain situtions, i.e. when the traffic stopped, and only in front of the wheels. Learning probably was also involved - for instance, pick up the nuts only when the traffic wasn't going.




Are you actually saying that the birds that crack nuts under the wheels of cars have experienced a mutation and that those that do not have not experienced this mutation? In other words, if we were to take an egg from one of these birds, hatch it in an incubator and then release it (where there aren't any of its kind, but there are streets, cars and stop lights) that this bird will start to crack nuts under the wheels of cars at stop lights? I don't think so. If it was an actual mutation then there should be some way to check this and see. There should be something different in the genetic code of these birds than others of their kind that do not exhibit this behavior.

Frankly, I think the example of birds cracking nuts at stop lights only shows us that these animals are quite intelligent. If I wanted to postulate an idea on how this all came about I would guess it went something like this:

The bird dropped a nut on the street (it could have been anywhere, but it was a street ... I saw this at my home in Israel because there were nut trees lining the street near our home). The bird intended to crack the nut the same way it always did, but a car came a scared the bird. After the bird returns it find the nut cracked open by the wheel of the car. After this happens a few times the bird would begin to purposely bring the nut to the street. It may not understand how the nut got cracked open, but it would begin to associate the street with the cracked nut. Later, as the bird keeps fleeing from the sound of oncoming cars he begins to not only associate the cracked nut with the street, but with the street and the sound. This would teach the bird to bring the nut to the street and to wait for the sound in order to get a cracked open nut.

I could go further, but I think we can see the point. No new information was needed genetically. No random mutation was necessary. All that was needed was an already existing level of intelligence for the bird to observe some very simple things in its environment and to use them to their advantage. If a single bird could learn via this simple method then others could learn via observing as well as their own experiences. These birds only exhibit the difference between learned behavior and instinct and nothing more.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 18:30

Quote:

A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.




For the rest of this post, I'm going to assume that the specific definition of superstition is:

Quote:

A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.




None of the other definitions really seemed to fit the context. So, here goes.

Quote:

No, atheists have no problem with the bible. You can interpret the bible in two ways:

a) Religious interpretation: The bible is a book of parables that contain a deeper wisdom.

b) Superstitious interpretation: The bible is a book of miracle stories that literally happened.




I'll recognize that my belief is, according to the definition, a superstition. However, I do recognize that it goes against the laws of nature. But I also recognize that the laws of nature had a beginning, and that that beginning was started by a creator. There's no two ways around it. So assuming that a creator can create the universe, I also assume that he can bend the laws of the universe. You don't believe in the creator, so this isn't your bag of tea. It really doesn't matter.

But, this gets to a bigger point.

Atheists don't have a problem with the bible, maybe. They have a problem that people believe what the bible says. It irks them. However, I'll admit that my belief is superstitious, according to definition. That's fine.

Its just as superstitious as the belief that life can start randomly, and just as superstitious as the belief that the universe can create itself out of nothing. So your belief in the Big Bang (not the evidence for it, but the actual event), and the origin of life is superstitious too. Technically, its also superstitious to believe that mutations can 'write' creatures, since its never happened, nor is there any physical evidence of its possibility, but we'll have to deal with that seperately.

NO ONE can escape superstition if they want to have ANY kind of belief on these events. If you don't want to be superstitious, deal only with what you know day in and day out, with your own eyes. I don't want to be that way, and there's only two possibilities for an answer. God, or nature. I've made my choice, but they're both just as irrational.

Quote:

Biology normally attributes seemingly intelligent animal behavior to instinct. Thus I do not think that crows understand vehicles and traffic lights. If that were the case, they'd developed that behavior as soon as traffic lights were invented - but it was observed only sice 20 years.




Well, this is kind of a sticky topic. I don't think they understand traffic lights per se.

However, many experiments have been done on birds (less 'intelligent' than the crow) and they have shown that animals (birds in this case) can problem solve, and learn. They took several small birds of the same species, and had one group of them go through a puzzle that kept growing in complexity. As they went through the puzzle step by step, they eventually were able to solve the most difficult puzzle which the other birds could not without the step-by-step process.

I don't think all animal behavior can be attributed to instinct. I don't think experimentation supports it. And I don't think mutations had anything to do with these crows learning to put their food under car tires.

There's another example of birds using motion detectors on doors to open them up and get food before returning, opening the door again, and bringing the food back to a nest inside a hardware store.

If such arbitrary behavior can be endowed with mutations, we should randomly see birds behaving very strangely. After all, the mutations don't know that the crows need to put the food under car tires. We should see some birds that put the nut under a tree, do a dance around it, and then expect it to be cracked open. I don't know, but it seems the possibilities for strange behavior would be endless, until they happened to mutate to figure out that car tires open up nuts.


I guess I'm going to have to drop out of the debate on the distance of stars. You win. Some of the things you said seemed pretty circular. But in general I won't disagree that we really are seeing things that are that far away. The most compelling evidence being that are galaxy MUST be pretty large (larger in distance than time allowed for YECreation) and we probably see objects outside of it.

I believe that time dialation can explain this, and that relatively the universe is alternately billions of years old and thousands of years old. Frankly, the evidence on our own planet that it isn't much more than a handful of thousands of years old is more compelling to our own existence.

I do have to wonder. If the Milky Way galaxy is about 80,000 to 100,000 light years in diameter, and contains about 200 to 400 billion stars, why are there so few stars in the sky? Even in photographs from the moon (with little unnatural light, and no atmosphere) the number of stars doesn't seem to match up. Actually in a lot of the photos of moon landings I didn't see any stars, which is strange because they're always visible (even during 'day'), but I assume there's a physical explanation for that.

Anyway, I don't really have much time left, so I want to move on to the other points.

Quote:

Yes, this is the basic creationist belief, but as they failed so far to give any proof for this other than their faith, I consider this belief unfounded.




Its just an observed fact that mutations don't add information. I think anyone without a bias watching this debate can plainly see that there has yet to be an example of new information.

Quote:

Simple math tells you that a random mutation mostly is information neutral, but sometimes adds information ("alleles") to the gene pool.




In that case, a mutation can lose information, add it to the gene pool and be called new information. Its relative to the genome. You can't look at it any other way, or you're ignoring genetic science.

A loss of information doesn't have to mean a complete loss of purpose. If I say, wash my bedroom window, compared to, wash my window, I'm still saying close to the same thing. However, one has less information than the other. Let's say that by not referencing a specific window, I get the person I'm talking to, to wash my car window instead by coincidence. This may work out for the best, because my car's window needed washing, but the specific information was still lost.

This is consistent with information theory, which evolution is not, and its consistent with what we observe. The only objection to this is that it doesn't fit evolution. Maybe evolution doesn't happen. You can't force the data to fit the theory, that's not how science works.

Quote:

antibiotics resistence, temperature resistence, Milano mutation




I think we'll have to get back on these, because they weren't quite resolved like I thought they were.

Quote:

Transformation May Combine DNA from Different Bacterial Species

Bacteria employ several methods of recom­bination that allow gene transfer between unre­lated species. A process called transformation allows bacteria to pick up free DNA from the environment. The free DNA may be part of the chromosome of another bacterium, including DNA from a bacterium of another species. Transformation may also occur when bacteria pick up tiny circular DNA molecules called plasmids (Fig. 13-1). Plasmids, which range in size from about 1000 to 100,000 nucleotides, are self-replicating lengths of DNA normally found in the cytoplasm of many types of bacteria and some yeasts. A single bacterium--a host cell--may contain dozens or even hundreds of copies of a plasmid. Although the bacterium’s “own” chromosome contains all the genes the cell normally needs for survival, the genes carried by the plasmid may also be useful. For example, some plasmids contain genes that code for enzymes that digest certain antibodies, such as penicillin. In environments where exposure to antibiotics is high, such as hospitals, these plasmids spread quickly, conferring a major advantage to their bacterial hosts and making antibiotic-resistant infections a serious problem (see Chapter 19). A bacterium may acquire plasmids from its own strain or from other types of bacteria. These plasmids are either liberated into the environment when a bacterium dies or are exchanged between living bacteria.

Viruses May Transfer DNA between Bacteria and between Eukaryotic Species

Viruses, which are little more than genetic material encased in a protein coat, transfer their genetic material to cells. Their viral genes replicate and direct the synthesis of viral proteins. New virus particles are assembled inside the cell, then released to repeat the cycle (Fig 13-2). Viruses may transfer genes among bacteria and among eukaryotic organisms, such as plants, as well. Bacteriophages, specialized viruses that infect bacteria, occasionally acquire pieces of bacterial DNA. The bacteriophages, or phages, then release this DNA into other bacteria that they infect. In some cases, the transferred bacterial DNA becomes incorporated into the host bacterial chromosome, adding new genetic material.




Audesirk & Audesirk, Biology, 5th edition, 1999, pages 230 - 231

That's a college textbook, I believe. Creationists don't dispute bacterial resistance via mutation, science does.

Heat resistance I can't argue. I don't know how the bacteria got the resistance. So I don't know how its done, what changes have to be made, and if those changes have to be brought about by mutation or natural genetic change.

Milano mutation I thought was already solved. I don't understand how going from producing HDLs to doing nothing is considered new information. But maybe that's because I don't believe in the impossible.

Quote:

The materialist view is that a complex enough brain automatically develops consciousness.




This is really a dead end argument. We can't debate something neither side really understands. But it is an interesting topic.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 20:42

Quote:

Words have meanings and it is wrong to place meaning on words and/or phrases that the words/phrases do not necessarily carry. For example, if my wife says, "I love you!" I would be wrong to imply that she means that she believes a frog will cross the road lugging an AK-47 loaded with nuclear tipped bullets (obviously, I am being overly silly in this example ). Instead, unless I have reason to believe otherwise, I am forced to conclude that her words mean simply what she stated. I bring this up because of this statement of yours:

[Quote]:
I was even told in my Christian education that the bible supports the Big Bang and the Evolution theories. ("Let there be light" - that's the Big Bang. "God separated the light from the darkness" - that's the background radiation. If you want.).




I look at the words "And God said, Let there be light." and I get this from it: God made a statement. His statement was "Let there be light" and the end result was light. Please note that I am not stating whether I believe this statement to be true or not.




And that's exactly why I don't 'like' the bible. Sure, if the bible would say event A happened, after it, event B happened and so on, I would probably not have any problems. But there are so many vague texts which give room to more than one interpretation. Proof me wrong if you wish, but it's all the same, as seen in this thread people use pretty vague texts as evidence for all kinds of events, eventhough literally there has only been written things like 'and then there was light'. I agree with your motivation on why you believe it to have been meant literally though, that's perfectly reasonable. But when you compare certain facts to the literal meaning of the text then personally, wether or not the content is true or not, I begin to doubt it nevertheless. It takes only one thing that doesn't add up and the whole text becomes questionable. Take simple details like changing water to wine. It's impossible, at least the way it's described, thus literally. I'm really not going to believe in any miraclestories unless I'd witnessed them myself. May sound a bit arrogant, but I rather see first, and believe afterwards, not the other way around.
Anyways I could probably write a big book about why I don't believe in the bible, which I might write someday, but I won't bother you with that now. The topic is about evolution or creation, not the bible. But off course the creationists theory ís basically in the bible.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 21:43

Phemox, the way you spoke about the bible seemed to me to describe the fossil record more than anything. Although, I'm sure you have no problem believing whatever you're told about that.

How many different ways are there to interpret the bible. Please point out a section of the bible, and give me a rational way to view it from different angles. Don't give me examples of christians who compromise the bible, tell me your own personal way of being able to interpret different parts of the bible different ways.
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 22:26

Irish_Farmer,

While I am also interested in this (the various views on biblical passages) I think asking Phemox to do this in this thread is not a good idea as it will take this thread way off course. This thread is about discussing evolution and creationism/intelligent design.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 22:58

Well the bible is the basis of the creation theory isn't it?
Ok, I'll try to be brief, eventhough I do feel that it fits in here.

First off, some more arguments against a literal interpretation. Let's start with how you explain certain contradictions in the bible, when the text supposedly has a literal meaning? Just to name some which i've came across:

-Who's the father?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

-Contradiction:
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

-Snakes do not eat dust, but the bible claims otherwise:

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

-Order of creation oddness:
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

Infact, this even indicates the existance of more than 1 God, when one would interpret it literally.

-Jesus' genealogy, eventhough he supposedly had no father except God:
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

-Can God be seen?
Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)


It's just the tip of an iceberg really, there are tons of more errors like these. Reasons enough for me to believe that the bible is infact folklore, it has all ingredients for it.

As for text being multi-interpretational, the existance of a belief in literal and non-literal interpretation says enough. Not only that, but the way some texts get quoted proves it too. It would not make much sense to go bother you with my own interpretations of texts. The fact that different people interpret the texts differently says enough. This proves, unless their claims are totally ridiculous, that the texts are or can be multi-interpretational. With text like the part about snakes who supposedly eat dust according to a literal interpretation, well how can you even defend that?

Quote:

The Bible, Christian exegetes claim, speaks to a basic human desire for limits, for certainty and closure. However, in its efforts to maintain its image of textual coherency, the Bible has been as much a site of interpretative struggle as ideological; it demonstrates, indeed, that the political is imbricated in every reading and every writing. The historical shifting of the locus of truth in the Bible from the word, to an authorized interpretation, to the subjective response of the believer, belies the impossibility of ever fixing truth to the polysemic nature of the sign; the history of Bible is nothing but the history of its many interpretations, of its demonstration of the irreducible polyphony of the sign and of language itself. It is the history of the effort to forestall the inevitable slippage of meaning into the free play, the multiple and mutable truths of the writerly text.

Indeed, with its many interlocking parts (the Synoptic Gospels, for example, tell many of the same stories from different points of view), its tentative sequentiality (unlike a novel, very few readers actually read the scriptures from beginning to end. Many find it just as useful to open the text to any page and read what ever chance/divine guidance shows them), and its history of multiple interpretations and re-writings (William Blake, for example, believed Satan was the hero of Genesis), it is just as possible to see the Bible as the model of hypertext as it is of The Book. In every Book, one might say, is a hypertext struggling to get out and vice versa.




Well if even Christians themselves argue about it's content, then who am I?

Cheers
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/15/06 23:08

Sigh. No one listens. This thread is about creation and evolution, not Bible contradictions. And, no, creationism is NOT just rooted in the Bible. There are people of other backgrounds than Christian that accept a form of creationism.

I will take these "contradictions" that you bring up and start a new thread about them. We can discuss these (and others ... if people want) there.
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/16/06 00:22

while its right that creationism isnt equal to the bible it is connected with religion so it is either christianity, islam or pick the religion of your choise here.

creationism is based on the fact that god exists and that he/she/it had the time and will to create the universe.


remembering a nice quote that compared religion with science:
1.) the observable fact: a river is moving along a terrain

2.) sollution one: religion.... we can claim that the reason the river moves how it moves is because of something called "spirit of the river" a holy power or some sort of supernatural god will. this makes the river bend and stream and break his way thru the landscape

3.) sollution two: science.. we know different physical forces have an impact on anything arround so as a result a river has to stream thru the landscape to reach the sea.

4.) observable fact: if we take away, adjust or alter those physical forces the stream will change.
removing all phyiscal impact also will transform the river from a river into a mess of particles

5.) conclusion: if removing the so called "spiritual river" doesnt have any impact or doesnt change anything (the river stays a river and doesnt change at all) chances are very good that something like a river spirit is not existent in first place.

intelligent design has one big problem and is a risk to religion: if evolution can be proved with one single fact this would kill god.
religion that does not interact with science has the benefit that even a solid evolution can go hand in hand with religion.

this is only for the claim of "irrational" superstition evolution should look like if creationists are comparing both of them.


about the living forms extracted from the habitat and placed into an isolated enviroenment (the bird and nest issue):
it has been shown more then often that animals included into different environments and raised by other species will addapt their behavior.

its important to understand what instincts are. the instinct we and the bird share is not to build a house but to achive shelter.
depending on our limitations and boundries we and the bird tries to achieve the best to get as much shelter as possible...or better said: the best shelter available for our needs.

Its not a dna code that makes us build the empire state building. If this would be fact humans would have the same sort of houses since genesis

If the birds would grow thumbs they would start to build doorbells and door handles.
also its observable that different bird types build other nests if they are placed as a minority (one or two) into another swarm right from the start.

example: birds caged from their birth and released later on are building different types of nests if they dont have contact with their own species.
A thing disovered during the age of sail and colonialsim.

so the instinct tells them to build shelter. but the result depends on their approach and "social" contacts.

take humans for example: the development of architecture is so different from region to region (take the ancient times) and this even though no other species is as communicative as the human one.

cheers
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/16/06 00:59

Quote:

There are many scientists themselves that are indeed creation scientists:




It is telling that many of the people listed died over 100 years ago, some of them died before Darwin was even born. If scientists believed in creationism prior to 1900 I would not hold it against them. Anyway, here's Project Steve :
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
Their signed statement is
Quote:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.



Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/16/06 01:07

Quote:

It is telling that many of the people listed died over 100 years ago, some of them died before Darwin was even born. If scientists believed in creationism prior to 1900 I would not hold it against them.




Then perhaps this incomplete list would serve better, Marco:

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/16/06 01:12

A decent link on scientists with creationist views:

http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm#wildersmith
Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/16/06 01:25

Yes, at least that list is more current. I don't think stretching the list by including Leonid Korochkin twice helps your case though.
Anyway, compare it to "Steve" and don't forget to multiply that document by 100 to get an idea of the irrelevance of scientists that believe in creationism.
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/16/06 01:42

My intention was not to include anyone twice. And, when it comes to lists, I am sure that anyone can create large lists. And while the majority may rule it does not make them right or wrong ... only the majority. The point of the post is that there are scientists that believe in creation. This means that the two are not mutually exclusive or that religion and science are at odds with each other and this was the point of my lists (not to show that "my list is bigger or more important than yours").
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/16/06 16:03

Quote:

1.) the observable fact: a river is moving along a terrain

2.) sollution one: religion.... we can claim that the reason the river moves how it moves is because of something called "spirit of the river" a holy power or some sort of supernatural god will. this makes the river bend and stream and break his way thru the landscape




That's so irrelevant, its not even worth mentioning. That's like me saying that because scientists thought the earth was flat, science is irrational.

Quote:

intelligent design has one big problem and is a risk to religion: if evolution can be proved with one single fact this would kill god.




It can't be proved with any 'facts' though.

Quote:

it has been shown more then often that animals included into different environments and raised by other species will addapt their behavior.




We have two different claims here, then. I'd like to see either of them backed up.




And now we get down to the best proof of evolution:

Everyone believes it! Or at least most of them do, so let's all just jump on the bandwagon.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/16/06 17:44

Quote:

The point of the post is that there are scientists that believe in creation. This means that the two are not mutually exclusive or that religion and science are at odds with each other and this was the point of my lists




Not religion and science. Only creationism and science. When I estimate that there are about 6 million scientists in the world (10 scientists per 10,000 people), your list means that about 0.001% scientists and engineers believe in creationism. Thats even well below the usual 2% whacko rate.

Quote:

Actually, no. This is not correct. You would need to know at least the original amount of energy put into the stone (the original velocity of the stone). Without knowing this you cannot accurately determine the starting place of the stone's throw. For example, if a kid throws a stone and you only see it just before it hits the ground (i.e. at the point where the force of gravity is overtaking the inertia of the stone) or if someone fired the stone from a sling shot (more initial inertia) and you see it at the point just before it hits the ground then you are only seeing the stone (in both cases) with approx. the same amount of energy. You cannot therefore know from how far the stone was thrown or shot. There are just too many variables in this situation.




Hmm. A stone hitting the ground at position (x,y) and speed vector (vx,vy,vz) was thrown from the starting position (x-2vx*vz/g,y-2vy*vz/g), neglecting the air friction.

Quote:

For generation after generation the same type of bird nests in the same way without deviation. This observation would indicate that birds did not all begin nesting on the ground and then evolve into tree nesting animals. Instead, this observation would lend itself to the idea that a Robin has always built its nest in the same manner.




The Robin, yes. But one of his evolutionary predecessors, probably not.

The fact that you can't observe the back side of the moon does not mean that the back side of the moon does not exist.

Quote:

I am sure you have heard the old phrase, "You can't get something from nothing!" How can a mutation (and a random one at that) add information that was not there before?




As a kid I owned an electronics experiments kit, consisting of a number of components like transistors, capacitors, batteries, lights, a loudspeaker, and so on. The components were placed in plastic cubes with magnetic contacts along the edges, so you could build all sorts of electronic devices by just placing the cubes together in the form of the desired circuit.

I noticed that when shuffling the cubes so that they fell together in a random order, mostly nothing happened, but sometimes the loudspeaker would produce a tone, like clicking, beeping or humming, or sometimes the light was flickering. The random cluster of components formed circuits like oscillators, phase shifters, or amplifiers.

This is what also happens in the DNA all the time. Information can come out of seemingly nothing. But it's not "nothing" of course. It's the energy put in by shuffling the components. There's no magic involved. Information gain in the gene pool requires an energy transfer that increases the entropy of the overall system.

Quote:

Are you actually saying that the birds that crack nuts under the wheels of cars have experienced a mutation and that those that do not have not experienced this mutation? In other words, if we were to take an egg from one of these birds, hatch it in an incubator and then release it (where there aren't any of its kind, but there are streets, cars and stop lights) that this bird will start to crack nuts under the wheels of cars at stop lights? I don't think so.




I won't argue here. I have crows and traffic lights in my neighborhood, but have never observed those crows using cars for cracking their nuts. Without further research one can not tell for sure whether it's instinct or learning.


@Irish:

Quote:

I believe that time dialation can explain this, and that relatively the universe is alternately billions of years old and thousands of years old.




Time dilatation, resp. general relativity, is indeed considered in the formula for calculating the distances of far objects. But I'm afraid time dilatation does not offer the possibility that the universe is alternately billions of years old and thousands of years old.

Quote:

If the Milky Way galaxy is about 80,000 to 100,000 light years in diameter, and contains about 200 to 400 billion stars, why are there so few stars in the sky?




We can see more than 2000 stars with the bare eye, but due to the illumination with electric light we normally only see about 300..400. With a good telescope you can see and count all the billions of stars that are not too close to the center of the galaxy. You can even see single stars in other galaxies, like Andromeda.

Quote:

In that case, a mutation can lose information, add it to the gene pool and be called new information. Its relative to the genome.




You mean when an allele that removes a feature is added to the gene pool? I guess this is not considered new information. In my understanding, new information means that a new feature (replacing an old one in an individual) is added to the gene pool, as in the Milano mutation.

Quote:

Its just an observed fact that mutations don't add information.




Observations not shared by anyone else are normally not called observations, but visions.

Quote:

Audesirk & Audesirk, Biology, 5th edition, 1999, pages 230 - 231

That's a college textbook, I believe. Creationists don't dispute bacterial resistance via mutation, science does.




I am not sure what you want to prove with that quote. Mutations happen by randomly changing DNA sequences, but also by inserting parts from foreign DNA or from the own DNA.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/16/06 20:09

Quote:

And now we get down to the best proof of evolution:

Everyone believes it! Or at least most of them do, so let's all just jump on the bandwagon.




Oww how I grow tired of these kind of remarks. Our motivations goes more than just a bit further than 'ow let's believe in evolution because it makes us look as cool as all the others who believe in evolution'.
If you use that kind of reasoning then it's no wonder you believe in creation. What's your problem with science anyways? Again, I've seen so little details about the creationism theory that have a more plausible answer to certain questions than science seems to have, let alone evidence in favor of the creationists theory.

As for the list of scientists that I've never even heard off before (most of them, not all), such a list says little to nothing to me. Yes, I know it wasn't your intention to post a big list to be able to support your claim stronger, but you did decide to post it.
I could post a list of scientists that do not believe in creationism next to it, and your list would by far not be as long as mine would be. Infact, I could post a list of christians believing in evolution next to it, and that list could very well be longer already than your list of scientists that 'believe in creationism'. Whatever that exactly means per scientist can be very different. It doesn't say they believe in creationism as been written literally in the bible, or wether they believe that life in the beginning has been created by (a) God?

Quote:

intelligent design has one big problem and is a risk to religion: if evolution can be proved with one single fact this would kill god.




Mmm, maybe not. Intelligent design could include evolution or can it not? There are people who consider God to be 'out of the picture and at rest', as in yes he has created the earth and life, but now he doesn't care about it no more and doesn't influence it anymore. (I mean care, as in observing and controlling.) What if he made us 'sensitive to mutations and thus sensitive to evolution' from the beginning on so he wouldn't have to control life directly? I'd say that would be a pretty clever designer, always dynamic life. Yet the designer part cannot be proven I guess, just like God cannot be proven. I think the concept of a God is too human to be correct. By the way, are there creationists out here that believe in a possibility of life in outerspace? What kind of explanation could the bible give for that? (Yes, I know it's pure theoretically, but if it's not predicted and we do find it, that would prove the bible wrong I guess?)

Cheers
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/17/06 04:26

but if you remove god from the "intelligent" design nothing more is left. You will lose "intelligent" (god) and the design (almighty creator=god) so the conclusion is that life came from nowhere

the problem with hardcore creationsim is that they set up the rule: if we can disprove evolution, creationism must be right. Without any logic or evidence. This claim has to be true because it has to be true.
This is not scientific at all. They set up rules that support evolution in the main idea (genetic mutation for example) and accpect it since its an observable fact.
Then you rip thing out of context to find a phenomeneon or something unexplainable and make this made up rules look false.

example: we accept aearo dynamics and the modern flight. But because we cant explain how the humble bee is able to lift its body into the air, nothing else can fly.


Also the lack of definition is a big problem with creationism.
What is a species, what is human life, a mutation, evidance or proof and so on.
If you want to prove something wrong you will have to set up the definitions first.

Every scientist will admit that any theory can have mistakes, errors or misinterpretations.
The idea of science is to get those bugs out of the theories.
The development of the theory of evolution is like the development of the gs engine updates: it takes forever to release the final candidate and all the work has to be done by doug ... and once released even more has to be done to satisfy the audience.
Incompleteness doesnt make the engine wrong or none existent. Its just not ready "enough" for everyone.


-->..just like God cannot be proven...

It can be proven if defined first. Lets see: the theory of some old, white bearded men on a mountain called olymp had to be trashed.
The idea of a heavens gate in the sky was denied by american airlines. And if G.Bush continues to drill for oil arround the world we can soon close the "hell in the middle of the earth" case as well.

If on the other hand you say that god is the good in us, the little thing that makes us do the right things and the little difference that makes us better then the average bag of sand or some rocks ...or at least the power to make us try to become better.
Then its cristal clear, god exists and he will as long as there are good people.
Its just like one of those befenit tv money collection shows: "call 555-safe us! go and pick up your phone and save god. all you have to do is to donate some humanity. Do it, you have anyway more then you could spend in your whole lifetime" call 555-...!


and to be honest: the idea that all life we know today was created out of a puddle of mud and developed to what we see today is anything but against religion or god.
And on judgement day you can lean back and say: Yesterday just a puddle of mudd, and today a thinking, feeling and loving human being. no bad vita at all

cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/17/06 06:45

I can only respond to one post for now. Must sleep.

Quote:

Not religion and science. Only creationism and science. When I estimate that there are about 6 million scientists in the world (10 scientists per 10,000 people), your list means that about 0.001% scientists and engineers believe in creationism. Thats even well below the usual 2% whacko rate.




This is an argument in spite of data, and it makes a bit of a straw man out of what Dan said. What Dan's list was meant to do is show there are creationists in science. By no means is it a scientific way of telling HOW MANY creation scientists there are. Your statement only makes sense if we believe that that list is entirely representative of all creation scientists everywhere.

Not that I think the whole argument is worth a grain of salt anyway.

Quote:

The fact that you can't observe the back side of the moon does not mean that the back side of the moon does not exist.




This is shifting the burden of proof. We always observe these animals building nests relatively the same way. My proof is in the observation. You can't make a claim and then call it substantial because no one can disprove it. Make a claim thats contrary to what we see, and then prove it.

Quote:

As a kid I owned an electronics experiments kit, consisting of a number of components like transistors, capacitors, batteries, lights, a loudspeaker, and so on. The components were placed in plastic cubes with magnetic contacts along the edges, so you could build all sorts of electronic devices by just placing the cubes together in the form of the desired circuit.

I noticed that when shuffling the cubes so that they fell together in a random order, mostly nothing happened, but sometimes the loudspeaker would produce a tone, like clicking, beeping or humming, or sometimes the light was flickering. The random cluster of components formed circuits like oscillators, phase shifters, or amplifiers.




This disregards everything we know about the nature of DNA information, and organisms. Normally the idea of a metaphor is to be a simplified representation, but in this case I think its oversimplified.

Quote:

We can see more than 2000 stars with the bare eye, but due to the illumination with electric light we normally only see about 300..400. With a good telescope you can see and count all the billions of stars that are not too close to the center of the galaxy. You can even see single stars in other galaxies, like Andromeda.




I wasn't taking into account the fact that some of them are just going to be too hard to see without an aid.

That explains it.

Quote:

new information means that a new feature (replacing an old one in an individual) is added to the gene pool, as in the Milano mutation.




Not with respect to genetics. And what the milano mutation did is actually a great example of the harm of mutations (I mean harm relatively, since it turned out to be good, but was harmful to the genome).

I won't get back into the debate on milano mutations unless you really want to, but suffice it to say that this mutation didn't offer a new feature. Depending on your definition of feature.

Quote:

I am not sure what you want to prove with that quote. Mutations happen by randomly changing DNA sequences, but also by inserting parts from foreign DNA or from the own DNA.




I'm only saying that bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance without mutations, and in fact that's how it happens. The insertion from foreign DNA is quite different from the kind of insertion caused by mutations. By the way, getting the DNA from somewhere else (assuming an external 'insertion' which is a really bad term to use for what happens) doesn't go to show how it was written in the first place, so I fail to see how that helps the mutation argument.


I must ask a question. If the universe is so old, how come comets give it an age of around 10,000 years? Excluding assumptions like the Oort cloud, how can you resolve this problem knowing what we know today? I'm just trying to iron things out in my head, astronomy has never been a huge interest of mine, but I do like to learn about it from time to time.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/17/06 17:07

- To the argument whether insertion of foreign DNA sequences is mutation or not: A mutation is defined as an inheritable modification to the DNA. Thus processes involving inserting foreign DNA are also mutations. However this is just a matter of wording. The fact is that this process, whatever called, can add new sequences to a DNA that are then inherited, and thus can add information to the gene pool.

- As to the comet question: There are short-periodic, long-periodic, and non-periodic comets. Non-periodic comets are those that only appear once and then disappear into the depths of space. Comets begin to evaporate when they are close to the sun, thus their life span can be rather accurately calculated from their size, perihel and orbit period. I do not know offhand of a comet of only 10,000 years life span, but an example for a short period comet is the Halley comet with an estimated life span of 40,000 years. Long period comets are much longer lived, like millions of years.

When calculating the paths of comets, you can trace their path back to the place of their origin. Long period comets mostly come from a spherical region about 50,000 AE from the sun, named Oort cloud. Short period comets originate from within our solar system, either from the Kuiper Belt or the Asteroid Belt.

Comets do not indicate a young age of the universe. But indeed there were a lot more comets in the early time of the solar system. The geologic record of the earth shows that it was heavily bombarded by comets and asteroids until about 4 billion years ago.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/17/06 22:06

I know many creationists claim that there is no such thing as an Oort cloud, but just because we haven't observed it yet, doesn't mean the effects of it's existence are not visible, and like jcl pointed out, you can derive the comets route and origin, so why exclude the Oort cloud?

Astrology without (some) assumptions, then there would hardly be anything left I guess. Take for example the birth of new stars, we would never ever be able to witness a full life cycle of a star. It just takes too long to witness, so we assume other stars are in a certain phase of their life cycle and that's how we figured out how the life cycle probably goes. I think there are enough stars in different phases to be able to put the puzzle together, like a frame by frame movie.
For most assumptions there are motivations and reasons for scientists believing they are right. If an assumption turns out to be invalid, well then we just have to adapt or change the theory, not every false assumption will completely falsify a theory most of the time anyways. In science there is no truth in absolutes, it's knowledge and thus time related. If you are going to attack every unproven thing or every assumption science makes, then you might as well start with the creation theory itself, where's the proof for that, that's an assumption to isn't it? It's even an assumption that requires faith, because of the lack of any indirect evidence. Just my two cents.

Cheers
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/18/06 07:39

I hope you mean Astronomy, not Astrology .
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/18/06 14:27

Oopsy, my bad, hehehehe ....

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/19/06 06:11

Quote:

To the argument whether insertion of foreign DNA sequences is mutation or not: A mutation is defined as an inheritable modification to the DNA.




Ok, well let me reword that then. When I say 'reword' I'm not speaking about rephrasing it, I mean let me retype exactly what I said before.

If its being inserted from a foreign DNA source, how does that explain the way the DNA was randomly written in the first place?

Moreover, why then can't a germ just immediately evolve into a human (-like cell) by absorbing human DNA (rhetoric). Even on 'mutations' like that there is a severe restriction on exactly what kind of change can take place. One of the biggest restrictions is that the DNA has to exist in the first place, fully created in some other organism.

Fundamentally, the germ is still the same germ it was before.

Quote:

In 1950 the idea was revived and proposed[1] by Dutch astronomer Jan Hendrick Oort to explain an apparent contradiction: comets are destroyed by several passes through the inner solar system, yet if the comets we observe had really existed for billions of years (since the generally accepted origin of the solar system), all would have been destroyed by now.




Uh huh. This kind of logic is why I refuse to believe evolution just HAS to be absolute truth, along with the big bang. If you're so hung up on the natural, how are you going to let the (scientific) imagination of some guy change the natural to explain why the accepted theory doesn't make sense? (Time and time again, no less).

Your theory has holes, and my theory has holes. Doesn't make either of them more or less true, but it does mean that I have no reason to accept yours as absolute truth like you seem to do. What if I were allowed to say that the reason we see stars that are billions of lightyears away is because there's an unobservable, hollow, spherical bend in space-time that surrounds our solar system at some arbitrary distance and makes it possible to see things that are far away, despite that our universe within the reference of earth is only about 6000 years old. After all, we can observe its affect since we see stars that are billions of lightyears away in a universe thats only (relatively) 6000 years old! Problem solved, theory-hole patched. Sure, some comets may seem to be about 40,000 years old, but that's just a contradiction that my theory will find evidence against at some later time. This is me, just using science!
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/19/06 13:28

Quote:

If its being inserted from a foreign DNA source, how does that explain the way the DNA was randomly written in the first place?




Through accumulation of advantageous mutations. Random DNA modifications and insertion of foreign DNA sequences are both mutations.

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

---

Comets: The Wikipedia quote is misleading - one of the few examples for bad presented information in Wikipedia. The Oort cloud does not "explain a contradiction". As I've already said in my post above, only long periodic comets have their orbits in the Oort cloud. The short periodic comets that are allegedly a contradiction originate in the Kuiper and Asteroid belts. Aside from that, the Oort cloud is not a real "cloud", it's just a region.

---

Holes in theories: There is a big difference between "holes" in scientific theories and in creationism. In science, the holes are open questions that are not yet answered. The holes in creationism however are inconsistencies with logic, nature's laws and observations.

Science is motivated by the search for truth, while creationism is motivated by propagating literal bible belief. In creationism you begin with a fixed "theory" and then need to interpret the observations until they fit the theory. In science it's vice versa, you begin with observations and then develop a theory that fits the observations. Thus your unobservable hollow space time bend is unscientific because it is not based on observations.
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/19/06 14:17

Quote:

In creationism you begin with a fixed "theory" and then need to interpret the observations until they fit the theory. In science it's vice versa, you begin with observations and then develop a theory that fits the observations.




You mean, like when a fossil is found and dated? What I mean here is this: they find a fossil and date it based on the strata it is found in. The scientist then places an approximate date on the fossil based on this information. Then the fossil is sent to a lab to be more "accurately" dated. Many tests are done to determine the date. If the fossil was stated to have been 20,000 years old and carbon dating says it is only 1,000 then another method is tried. If that dating method states it is some other date than the one the original scientist placed on the fossil (based on the strata it was found in) then the next test is done and the next until, finally, one of the tests comes within the ballpark of the original scientit's date.

This is done "scientifically" because of a "fixed theory" and observations (as shown above) are interpreted until they fit the theory. In fact, the dating of fossils is very strange. As indicated, the initial date of a fossil is based on the geologica layer (strata) in which they are found. Yet the dating of these strata is based on the fossil record. This is circular reasoning. You date a fossil based on the strata which, itself, is dated based on the fossil record.

Creationism is not trying to force observations to fit a theory. Like any other since, "creationism" is an idea. The science is to test the idea and see if the observations bear the idea witness ... the same thing the evolutionist are to be doing.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/19/06 14:42

Carbon dating can not be used for fossils (except maybe for very recent fossils). Therefore fossils can normally only be dated from their strata. But of course the strata itself is not dated from the fossil data - this would not make any logical sense because you don't have a fossil data without dating the strata first.

Strata can be dated in several ways, like from its depth, its magnetic orientation (the history of the magnetic field is well known), or from vulcanic stones in that strata, using the 235U -> 207Pb decay. Combining several dating methods normally gives a pretty accurate date of that strata. There are not several tests tried until one fits - all suitable tests must fit or the whole measurement is scientifically worthless.
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/19/06 16:40

From Wikipedia on Geologic Time Scale:

Quote:

The identification of strata by the fossils they contained, pioneered by William Smith, Georges Cuvier, and Alexandre Brogniart in the early 19th century, enabled geologists to divide Earth history more finely and precisely. It also enabled them to correlate strata across national (or even continental) boundaries. If two strata (however distant in space or different in composition) contained the same fossils, chances were good that they had been laid down at the same time. Detailed studies of the strata and fossils of Europe produced, between 1820 and 1850, the sequence of geological periods still used today.




Quote:

Advances in the latter part of the 20th century allowed radioactive dating to provide relatively firm dates to geological horizons. In the intervening century and a half, geologists and paleontologists constructed time scales based solely on the relative positions of different strata and fossils.




My contention is that while radiometric dating methods are used that there are so many various ways of tesing and, in many cases, a variety of results are obtained. When strata are tested they are tested with a theory already in place. That theory is that the strata must be within a certain age. Tests that do not give a date within that age are disregarded (for a variety of reasons) and tests that get within the ballpark are often accepted. There may be valid reasons for ignoring some of the tests, but the "fixed theory" of the age of the strata was set long ago. The idea of dating the strata by the fossils they contain is "set in stone" and thus the dating methods rely on this as a means to get a general idea of the age of the strata.
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/19/06 16:51

BTW - I should never have mentioned carbon dating. You are absolutely correct in what you said about it and dating geological layers:

Quote:

It should be understood that estimating the ages of rocks using radiometric dating is an entirely separate technique from the radiocarbon (C-14) method for dating organic remains. Radiometric dating of rocks is based on the decay of long lived isotopes of Potassium, Thorium, and Uranium. Radiocarbon dating is based on the decay of the short lived C-14 isotope and is irrelevant to determining the age of the Earth.




But I think there may be problems with these dating methods as well. For example, the above quote states that they measure the decay of isotopes such as Potassium, Thorium and Uranium. But there could be problems. The dating methods ASSUME that there is X amount of these isotopes to begin with in order to judge the age of these rocks. While these isotopes do decay and their decay rates are known, there are other ways of introducing materials into rock, to remove materials and to even increase/decrease decay rates. As a result, these dating methods are guesswork at best.
Posted By: Spaz

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/19/06 18:30

As Dan mentioned, the dating metods are based on erroneous assumptions and are, at best, guesswork. On top of that, though, even if you're willing to pretend that the gigantic gaps in the fossil record don't exist, basing a fossil's age on it's location in the geologic strata is loaded with problems. It completely ignores known scientific processes like liquefaction, which far better explains the sorting of fossils into different strata. Most geologic dating techniques are based on circular reasoning. They start with the assumption that the earth is billions of years old, base their dates on that, and then use it to "prove" that the earth is billions of years old. The theory of evolution is so full of holes that it really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Take your strata, for example. If the earth formed by gravitational accretion, as most evolutionists believe, then simple mathematics shows that the energy dissipation in such a process would have meant that the entire earth would have been molten for millions of years. If that were the case then all the heavier metals, like gold, should have sunk beyond our reach to much deeper strata - yet we find gold on the earth's surface. The theory of evolution falls apart all the way from protiens and DNA to the mountains on Venus.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/19/06 23:10

Quote:

Through accumulation of advantageous mutations. Random DNA modifications and insertion of foreign DNA sequences are both mutations.




Cool, I've already shown that random mutations don't increase complexity (all modern examples do the opposite). This still begs the question. WHAT WROTE THE DNA IN THE FOREIGN SOURCE? If we don't know where it came from, then we can't attribute it to an evolutionary change. Its more like sharing....But either way, while the bacteria may be getting something new, you have to explain how random changes in DNA can write this data in the first place. Eventually, if we put all the known bacteria in a test tube and let them share plasmids (etc), we would eventually reach equillibrium, and if you believe this is evolution, then evolution ends with all of the 'germs' being the same germs they were before. Hardly sounds like evolution to me.

Quote:

The short periodic comets that are allegedly a contradiction originate in the Kuiper and Asteroid belts.




I fail to see how Kuiper explains away the problem. Maybe you can elaborate?

Quote:

Science is motivated by the search for truth, while creationism is motivated by propagating literal bible belief.




That's an unfair stereotype if I've ever heard one. That would be like me asserting that evolutionists are simply motivated by propagating atheist views. Oh, wait....

Quote:

creationism you begin with a fixed "theory" and then need to interpret the observations until they fit the theory.




You've gotta be kidding me?! This is what everyone is doing nowadays. This is what science has become. How are we considered the only ones doing this? If at all.

Quote:

science it's vice versa, you begin with observations and then develop a theory that fits the observations.




This is funny
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/20/06 08:04

Quote:

while the bacteria may be getting something new, you have to explain how random changes in DNA can write this data in the first place.




Just like in the example I've mentioned with the electronics experiment kit.

Explained in a simple way: Mutation applies small random changes to the DNA. Natural selection then removes all changes that are harmful, only leaving progressive modifications. These modifiactions then accumulate over time, leading to the constant evolution of species.

- As to the Kuiper and Asteroid belt question: Both are the origins of short-lived comets (the Oort cloud is only the origin of long-lived comets). "Origin" here also means the aphel of comet orbits, i.e. the position far from the sun in an elliptical comet orbit.

Asteroids, Kuiper belt objects and Oort cloud objects normally all have circular orbits. They do not come close to the sun. From time to time, objects are ejected from the belts due to gravity effects by close encounters with other objects. Those gravity effects are not directly observed, but can be computer simulated and are scientifically undisputed. The ejected objects then get elliptical orbits that lead some of them into the proximity of the sun, eventually causing their evaporation. Thus, both belts are permanently losing matter, but at a very low rate. They still have enough matter to produce comets for the next billions of years.

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

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

There's no "comet contradiction" at all.

---

@Dan: The "initial amount" is one of the two arguments on creationist websites for dealing with the fact that the earth age disproves their faith. The other argument is "decay rates change over time".

The creationist who first came up with the "initial amount" argument apparently confused the C14 method with uranium/lead isotope dating. The C14 method indeed depends on the initial amount of C14, and thus must be calibrated. The U235->Pb207 method however does not depend on the initial amount of Pb207 and does not need any calibration. For lead rejecting minerals, like Zircon, the initial Pb207 amount is zero. For not lead rejecting minerals, isochrone dating is used. Its result is independent of the initial lead content of the rock.

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

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

Because calibration is not required, the U235->Pb207 method is extremely accurate - the error is less than 0.1%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

---

On a side note: On creationist-oriented websites you'll find listed about 100 arguments for explaining away all discoveries about evolution and earth age. And on science-oriented websites like talkorigins.org you'll find a list of the refutations of all those arguments. But it's not much fun when you post an argument and I then just look up its rebuttal on talkorigins. I suggest that we discuss about more interesting themes.

What I still would like to hear, for instance, is creationist theory itself. Since creationists gave up defending it long ago, this theory seems to have disappeared from all their websites. All their remaining efforts go in attacking scientific observations, but they do not offer anything to replace them. In which way, for instance, do creationists "scientifically explain" the origin of the earth and solar system?
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/20/06 13:27

Quote:

In which way, for instance, do creationists "scientifically explain" the origin of the earth and solar system?




JCL, you are really kidding me, right? The very name of the concept explains the origin ... it was "created". Christians believe it was created "ex nihlo" ... from nothing ... by the very word of God. However, as is pointed out, this cannot be tested. I suspect that this would be the reason you are not seeing this proposed as a theory to be tested scientifically.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/20/06 13:35

Ok, but this then again raises the basic question that I already asked in the other thread: If the earth was created by God in the way it is, what good is creationism then at all?

If you believe the earth was created by God 6000 years ago, then it was certainly no problem for God to place fossils in the earth, to create rocks that were already 4.55 billion years old, and to place photons in space so that we can see stars that are billions of light years away.

So for what reasons do you need to explain away all those observations?

By the way, I'm not kidding - I'm taking this (well most of it) seriously.
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/20/06 14:24

Quote:

By the way, I'm not kidding - I'm taking this (well most of it) seriously.




First of all, I do appreciate it and, frankly, I do appreciate your tone throughout most of this discussion. It has been very interesting to see this thread and the Bible Contradictions thread be mostly friendly .

Quote:

If you believe the earth was created by God 6000 years ago, then it was certainly no problem for God to place fossils in the earth, to create rocks that were already 4.55 billion years old, and to place photons in space so that we can see stars that are billions of light years away.




First of all, I think that most creationists are not hard set on a 6000+ year date. This date was originally conceived by James Usher when he attempted to calculate the age of the earth based on the genealogies in Genesis and through the Bible onward to his day. It is possible that his dates are way off because the Bible does not always give every single person in a genealogy, but tends to mention only the "significant" people in the genealogy (and those needed to "connect the dots"). As a result, it is possible that people (even generations) are missing from lineage presented to us. Therefore, most creationsists believe the earth is between 10,000 and 20,000 years old ... some older.

The other concept that you bring up about placing fossils there or photons already in place is called the Aparent Age theory (at least that is what I have heard it called). It is the concept that things may APPEAR older than they are because of the way that God created things. An example of this is the creation of Adam and Eve. It is obvious that Adam, one minute after being created, was not a baby of only one minute in age (or a fetus, etc). It seems rather obvious that Adam was a full grown adult. As a result, if we were there and saw Adam we would assume he was maybe 20 or 30, but the fact would be that he was only moments old. Perhaps this is the case with the rest of creation as well and it would certainly explain how we can see light from stars so far away.

As far as fossils there is a misconception. It has been reasoned that it takes a long, long time for fossils to form. However, when Mt. St. Helens errupted several years ago (was this in the 1980's?) and quickly laid down layers of ash scientists were excited to see what they would discover within. What they found surprised many of them. Animals that had been trapped in the ash were completely fossilized in under 4 months. Obviously the prossess of fossilization does not take very long periods to occur. I mention this only to state that this observation may lend credibility to the idea that the majority of the fossil record was created by the great Diluge (the flood of Noah) and thus the fossil record (and the strata they reside in) may not be as old as some think they are ... but that is another subject.

Quote:

So for what reasons do you need to explain away all those observations?




Anything I say here would be my personal oppinion. So please take it that way. I think that you bring up an interesting point. Why try to explain any of this ... scientifically or otherwise. In the past this may not have been necessary because many people believe in a God or gods as the creator(s) of all that they saw. As the idea of a force other than a god came to be the majority a need arose to try to show that a creator was behind all of this. In other words, as evolution became the accepted scientific way of explaining origins then those that believed in God wanted to come up with equally scientific means to validate their concepts. In this way, creation science becomes two things (once again, in my oppinion):

1 - A means to validate what they believe
2 - A means to cause people to believe what creationists preceive to be the truth

Lastly, the Bible states that God gave man "dominion" over the earth. I believe that part of this "dominion" manifests itself in the desire to explore the creation and to master it. As a result, even the Christian wants to scientifically examine the creation to see what "secrets" it holds. In the process of doing this they believe they will also find evidence of the handiwork of God himself:

Quote:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. - Psalm 19:1




Quote:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made - Romans 1:20a



Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/21/06 17:04

Mt. Helens? Wasn't that several hundred years ago? Not several years, unless I've missed something ... Anyways, about the fossils you meant, no well-read geologist finds them surprising, and no geologist has ever claimed that it took millions (or even thousands) of years to bury them.
Science is perfectly happy with the idea that deposition is occasionally rapid.
However, to see this as evidence for all these kind of fossils to be possibly way younger ánd obviously ignoring the dating methods along the way is problematic, there are some good arguments against this.

Apart from this:
"Some upright fossils had rotted-away interiors by the time their burial was final. So, in those cases, the tree may have stood dead for some time. The typical height of upright fossils is on the order of two meters, so many of these fossils represent only the base of the original tree. The top of the tree presumably rotted."

Quote:

There are at least three lines of argument against this.

The first argument is that the fossils aren't all found on one single level of the Geologic Column. Some are from the Devonian Period, well before the dinosaurs. Some were buried long after the dinosaurs went extinct. This is what you would expect if each burial was caused by a small, local event. And, there are differences, depending on where they are found. For example, giant lycopod trees are only found in Carboniferous Period rocks, and cypress trees aren't found below the Cretaceous Period. The same comment applies to their leaves and spores and pollen. But this is exactly what you would not expect if a single, global flood had washed over them. Surely the flood would have ripped many trees up, and dropped them elsewhere. Or if not the trees, at least the pollen.

The second argument is that some upright fossils were transported to where they are now. Others are clearly still in place (in situ), because they are still rooted into a fossilized soil. The transported trees have had their root systems ripped, but the in situ trees still have the small, fine rootlets in place. It does not seem possible for a single global event to transport some trees and not others.

The third argument is that there are some upright trees which are on top of other upright trees. We know that the upper tree grew after the lower one was buried, because the uppper tree is clearly in situ.

An example of this is a burrow pit near Donaldsonville, LA. When they excavated backswamp clays to rebuild the adjacent levee, they uncovered three levels of upright cypress forests buried on top of each other beneath the recent floodplain. These polystrate trees are buried within recent Mississippi River deposits that are only 4,000 years old. The much older upright trees in Yellowstone Park are similarly layered.




You see, the opposite result of what a 'global flood' would provide.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/21/06 23:24

Quote:

Explained in a simple way: Mutation applies small random changes to the DNA. Natural selection then removes all changes that are harmful, only leaving progressive modifications. These modifiactions then accumulate over time, leading to the constant evolution of species.




I know how the theory works. But you quoted me out of context. I was asking how getting the DNA from a foreign source, still doesn't explain how that foreign DNA was written in the first place.

Quote:

Because calibration is not required, the U235->Pb207 method is extremely accurate - the error is less than 0.1%.




I'll have to look into it when I have more time, but if you don't know the starting point, then how can you ever know how much of the daughter isotope is there in relation to the 'age'.

Quote:

And on science-oriented websites like talkorigins.org you'll find a list of the refutations of all those arguments




I've also found a lot of refutations to talk.origins arguments, back and forth and so on.

Quote:

What I still would like to hear, for instance, is creationist theory itself.




If evolution is change over time, then I suppose creation is change within a kind over time, within the limit of that kind. To be succinct.

I contest a lot of fundamental beliefs, like the age of the earth, and what have you. But the way I see it, it really doesn't matter. Creationists attribute the observations of nature to an all-powerful creator, evolutionists attribute all natural observations to an all-powerful nothingness.

I guess, if my succinct answer isn't what you were looking for, the I have to ask what specifically you want to know.

Quote:

Since creationists gave up defending it long ago, this theory seems to have disappeared from all their websites.




I don't know which sites you've been reading, but this isn't the impression I get at all. But maybe we're not coming from the same viewpoint.

Quote:

do creationists "scientifically explain" the origin of the earth and solar system?




Big bang or not, we attribute it to either God or some sort of creator. Materialists must either say that nothing became something, or that matter is in some aspects supernatural.

Quote:

Ok, but this then again raises the basic question that I already asked in the other thread: If the earth was created by God in the way it is, what good is creationism then at all?




Creationists would not say the earth, or life, is in the state it was at the beginning of creation. Potentially having a bit to do with the second law of thermodynamics, but there's so much confusion surrounding that law that it could be a whole other debate.

Quote:

If you believe the earth was created by God 6000 years ago, then it was certainly no problem for God to place fossils in the earth,




No one seriously believes that except certain ill-informed people.

Same with old rocks. Albeit rocks could have looked like they were older, its simply assumed that all heavy elements came from stars. Which is unverifiable, and actually scientifically unimaginable. Which we can get into if you want. Let's assume a more reasonable explanation though, and say that elements didn't come from stars, but were all created at about the same time. That might throw a wrench into dating methods.

Quote:

to create rocks that were already 4.55 billion years old, and to place photons in space so that we can see stars that are billions of light years away.




Same thing here. I believe there's a fairly good chance that we are seeing things that are billions of lightyears away. Although I don't really agree with the way they figure out these distances.

Quote:

So for what reasons do you need to explain away all those observations?




I don't kow. Why does anyone care to discover anything?

Why do scientists try and figure out how matter could have created itself. Its a futile thing to do. It must ignore everything we know about nature. But they still do it. It doen't make sense to me either.

Quote:

Mt. Helens? Wasn't that several hundred years ago?




1980s.

Quote:

You see, the opposite result of what a 'global flood' would provide.




So instead of trying to fix the problem of polystrate fossils, they use them as a way to disprove the flood? As I know it, this isn't a problem for us. There could have been local flood events, or some other simple explanation. I'm not sure about all the details at this time. However, to say that some of these polystrate trees are just stumps ignores that many of them are huge and extend through many layers. So its really a bigger problem for you. Why, if these layers are so old, would the tree have stood up for that long? Even talk.origins explanation fails to address this in any real way, though it seems to address the problem, the argument is paper thin. If you guys want to pursue that line of argument, we can.

The deal isn't to say that polystrate trees prove THE flood, just that they prove that layers of strata can't be dogmatically believed to be millions+ years old.

Actually, I shouldn't say that it proves a young age for strata. But instead makes it hard to believe that any fossil found several feet above another is automatically 65 million years older than the lower one or whatever.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/23/06 09:44

Quote:

I was asking how getting the DNA from a foreign source, still doesn't explain how that foreign DNA was written in the first place.




Then I haven't understood the question. Insertion of foreign DNA from other species is a frequent mutation of bacteriae and virae, but does not happen - as to my knowledge - in higher organisms. There the most frequent mutation is a point mutation. "Writing a DNA" by point mutations occurs in the way I described above, as an accumulation of beneficial mutations.

Quote:

Creationists would not say the earth, or life, is in the state it was at the beginning of creation. Potentially having a bit to do with the second law of thermodynamics, but there's so much confusion surrounding that law that it could be a whole other debate.




Only confusion among creationists. For an average educated person with some mathematical background, thermodynamics is easy to understand.

Quote:

Albeit rocks could have looked like they were older, its simply assumed that all heavy elements came from stars. Which is unverifiable, and actually scientifically unimaginable.




Apart from the fact that we observe all those "unverifiable, and actually scientifically unimaginable" heavy elements in star and supernova spectrae since 150 years.

Quote:

Creationists attribute the observations of nature to an all-powerful creator, evolutionists attribute all natural observations to an all-powerful nothingness.




If you think this over a little, you might notice that quite the opposite is true.

Creationists attribute the observations of nature to the actions of supernatural forces, scientists attribute the observations of nature to the actions of natural forces. What does that mean for a creator?

If you open your eyes and look around, you'll see that nature is running without any obvious supernatural events. The Creator (let us assume for a moment that he or she exists) does not need to manually rotate the earth or apply the breath of life to every living being. Obviously the world is designed to run automatically without permanent divine interventions.

The logical conclusion is that the Creator wanted to world to run this way. For this, he implemented the mechanism that science calls "nature's law".

The assumption that the world still needs supernatural interventions in order to develop species implies a limited ability or limited power of the creator. Only a bad watchmaker needs to push his watches from time to time to keep them running.

Scientists who believe in some creator attribute him the creation of the world and possibly the creation of nature's laws. They certainly do not attribute him the need to intervene permanently.

Permanent intervention is the belief of creationists. This is the belief in a lesser god. Admittedly all belief systems started this way. Ancient cultures also believed in gods that run the world by supernatural forces. Their gods carried the sun over the firmament, and, as creationists still believe today, literally created all species.

Thus, creationists do obviously not believe in an all-powerful creator. An all-powerful creator is basically an evolutionist belief (of religious evolutionists). I know that this might have come as a surprise to you, but if you think it over, it's just logical.
Posted By: capanno

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/23/06 10:07

Quote:

xplained in a simple way: Mutation applies small random changes to the DNA. Natural selection then removes all changes that are harmful, only leaving progressive modifications. These modifiactions then accumulate over time, leading to the constant evolution of species.




This is getting old. Do some research.

Im not going to jump in this boat, but please tell me how do you explain the following:

Thoughts
Instincts
100 percent compatible sexes developing at the same time. How and why did the reproductive system evolve? Why did the switch take place from self-replication?
which evolved first, the need for food or the digestive system. If it is the digestive system, why did it, and how come it fits in perfectly with the rest of the system?
How did the blood system evolve? How did veins form?

This is just a small number. If you want to say we are here by chance, then you have a serious flaw in logic.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/23/06 11:41

Quote:

It is the concept that things may APPEAR older than they are because of the way that God created things. It is obvious that Adam, one minute after being created, was not a baby of only one minute in age (or a fetus, etc). It seems rather obvious that Adam was a full grown adult. As a result, if we were there and saw Adam we would assume he was maybe 20 or 30, but the fact would be that he was only moments old. Perhaps this is the case with the rest of creation as well




I haven't thought so far about Adam's age, but indeed, this sounds like a convincing argument for an apparent age of the creation. Since God certainly did not want to place Adam on a planet of liquid lava, he had also to create the earth with an initial age. Thus there is no reason to assume that this initial age was not consistent with the measured age of 4.55 billion years.

Quote:

As far as fossils there is a misconception. It has been reasoned that it takes a long, long time for fossils to form. However, when Mt. St. Helens errupted several years ago (was this in the 1980's?) and quickly laid down layers of ash scientists were excited to see what they would discover within. What they found surprised many of them. Animals that had been trapped in the ash were completely fossilized in under 4 months. Obviously the prossess of fossilization does not take very long periods to occur. I mention this only to state that this observation may lend credibility to the idea that the majority of the fossil record was created by the great Diluge (the flood of Noah) and thus the fossil record (and the strata they reside in) may not be as old as some think they are




Yes, the mere fact of fossilization is not a proof of the age of that fossil. (There is however one exception: fossils in amber. Amber needs millions of years to form from tree resin). Normally, fossils are not dated from themselves, but from stones or rocks found in the same strata.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/24/06 05:10

Quote:

Then I haven't understood the question. Insertion of foreign DNA from other species is a frequent mutation of bacteriae and virae




Yeah. Prewritten DNA. It didn't have to be somehow written from scratch. So it may technically be a mutation, but not the kind of mutation that evolution likes so much. I'm sure you understand the limitations on this kind of mutation. At best, what we'll end up with is a bunch of bacteria that all have the same resistances, but nothing more than the same bacteria they were to begin with. Let's say we pool all these bacteria together (basically putting a rush on what's happening now) and let them all share DNA at once. Its just going to reach equillibrium. Nothing new will be created from it.

Quote:

"Writing a DNA" by point mutations occurs in the way I described above, as an accumulation of beneficial mutations.




I'll have to disagree with this, but I don't have time to get into it tonight.

Quote:

Only confusion among creationists. For an average educated person with some mathematical background, thermodynamics is easy to understand.




I don't know, when I hear an evolutionist say that all it takes to create order is the addition of energy (from a debate) then I have to be skeptical about the idea that only creationists are confused.

Quote:

Apart from the fact that we observe all those "unverifiable, and actually scientifically unimaginable" heavy elements in star and supernova spectrae since 150 years.




SOME heavy elements are produced.

Quote:

Larger stars will also fuse heavier elements, all the way to iron, which is the end point of the process.




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

Unless there's an explanation for the other heavy elements?



And then you spend the rest of your post setting up a strawman for you to burn down. I'll take a few moments to tell you how I see things, as a creationist.

Quote:

Creationists attribute the observations of nature to the actions of supernatural forces




No, we attribute the things that nature cannot do on its own to God or whatever other creator. The universe cannot create itself. Life cannot create itself. So regardless of the specific details like evolution and all of that noise, we understand some fundamental things about nature that scientists just say, "Our explanation isn't really physically possible, but we know this is how it happened anyway."

God created the universe to run itself, albeit in a way that will eventually wind down to nothing. Do you know why the Big Bang was generally accepted over solid state (in part). Because if the universe was infinite, there would be no energy left. It had to have a start. Certainly something added a whole bunch of usable energy to the universe (etc), and I can't imagine any natural event that could cause that to happen. At least one that lies within the realm of reality.

The Big Bang has an even bigger problem because it has to create all of this energy and matter from scratch....literally nothing.

Quote:

you'll see that nature is running without any obvious supernatural events. The Creator (let us assume for a moment that he or she exists) does not need to manually rotate the earth or apply the breath of life to every living being. Obviously the world is designed to run automatically without permanent divine interventions.




I ALMOST couldn't have said it any better myself. Although I would have left out the uncertainty of a creator.

I just want to point out one thing.

Quote:

obviously the world is designed to run automatically without permanent divine interventions.




I'm glad we agree.

Quote:

The assumption that the world still needs supernatural interventions in order to develop species implies a limited ability or limited power of the creator. Only a bad watchmaker needs to push his watches from time to time to keep them running.




I don't see what this has to do with creationism at all. Are you saying that in order for life to keep on existing once its been created, that we assume God has to keep fixing it? I wasn't aware that this was a creationist belief.

Quote:

and possibly the creation of nature's laws.




I would think this would just go hand in hand with the creation of the universe. I don't think that nature's laws are absolute truth. They're just the 'absolute truth' as far as our universe is concerned (per se). What would be the point of creating a universe, and then just hoping that random chance keeps it together and running?

Obviously the world would have been designed to run on its own.

Quote:

Permanent intervention is the belief of creationists. This is the belief in a lesser god.




First part, wrong, last part, not necessarily logically correct because even an all powerful God could make a creation that he had to constantly maintain if he really wanted to, I suppose. But I don't see as to why he would.

Quote:

as creationists still believe today, literally created all species




I don't see any rational, scientific explanation otherwise. If elightened folks have somehow moved beyond the creation of life, then I'd love to see some reasonable evidence. There aren't enough zeros in the world to explain the slim chances of this happening.

Also, its not fair to say he literally created all species. Sometimes, species are created as life reproduces. We believe in original kinds. In other words, something like a wolf was created at the beginning, and micro evolution took over from there.

Quote:

Amber needs millions of years to form from tree resin




I don't see how that's an exception. As far as I can tell, they date amber by the strata. So there's just as much proof for the age of amber as there is for the age of any other fossil. From what I understand, no one truly knows for sure how or why amber is formed, though there is some speculation.

Anyway, off to bed. Good night.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/24/06 07:41

Quote:

I don't know, when I hear an evolutionist say that all it takes to create order is the addition of energy (from a debate) then I have to be skeptical about the idea that only creationists are confused.




This scepticism is justified. You need not only energy, but also a temperature gradient for creating order.

Quote:

Larger stars will also fuse heavier elements, all the way to iron, which is the end point of the process.




I see now the reason for your con-fusion. Iron is the element with the highest binding energy per nucleon. Thus, fusion indeed ends with iron. Synthesis of elements higher than iron is an energy consuming process.

Fusion - energy gain (elements <= iron)
Nucleosynthesis - energy loss (elements > iron)

For overcoming the electrical potential barrier, you need to accelerate ions to a high velocity for getting new elements higher than iron. The required temperatures are reached only in heavy stars at the very end of their life span: in supernovae.

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

BTW, what is your problem with heavy elements at all? Neither is this disputed in any way nor has it anything to do with creationism. Fossil and earth dating have nothing to do with where heavy elements are created - in case you thought that.

Quote:

Do you know why the Big Bang was generally accepted over solid state (in part). Because if the universe was infinite, there would be no energy left.




I do not understand what you mean with "no energy left". The Big Bang is unrelated to the finiteness or infiniteness of the universe. In fact the analysis of the COBE and WMAP data gave some indications that the universe IS infinite.

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

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html

We'll know more about the infinity or finity of the universe after 2007, when the Planck space probe will be launched.

There are also several theories about the start of the universe, but none can be verified or falsified at the moment, as the Big Bang model does not cover the first 10^-43 seconds. We'll need string theory for looking into that very beginning, and this will take some more 30 years.

Until then, you're free to put everything into that first split second - God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever.

Quote:

"Creationists attribute observations of nature to the actions of supernatural forces"

"No, we attribute the things that nature cannot do on its own to God or whatever other creator."




What is the difference between the above statements? An action by God is certainly a supernatural action.

I also do not fully understand the rest of your arguments to the 'intervention' issue. As you've stated earlier, creationists believe that nature's laws, although created by God, are still not good enough to produce life. Thus life required additional supernatural events, like some god physically placing species on earth. That was the line of my arguments and, as to my knowledge, essential creationist faith. Why is this now a "strawman"?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/26/06 22:32

Quote:

I see now the reason for your con-fusion. Iron is the element with the highest binding energy per nucleon. Thus, fusion indeed ends with iron. Synthesis of elements higher than iron is an energy consuming process.

Fusion - energy gain (elements <= iron)
Nucleosynthesis - energy loss (elements > iron)

For overcoming the electrical potential barrier, you need to accelerate ions to a high velocity for getting new elements higher than iron. The required temperatures are reached only in heavy stars at the very end of their life span: in supernovae.




Ok. I guess I'm just wondering how that helps out out here on earth. 'Dying' is not the word I would use to describe our sun. So my only problem with this is where do all these heavier elements come from on earth?

Maybe I'm mistaken on this, I really don't care too much for astronomy, but I have yet to hear a decent explanation for this.

I suppose the explanation might be that these heavier elements, caused by a supernova, formed clouds that then formed into solar systems, but I suppose I'll have to ask where the proof of this happening is. Except that its the only explanation in a materialistic universe.

Quote:

I do not understand what you mean with "no energy left".




The energy would be unusable, and the universe would be uninhabitable.

Quote:

The Big Bang is unrelated to the finiteness or infiniteness of the universe.




Ok, unless you believe that the big bang was the beginning to the universe. Which is the impression I get from many of the big bang believers. If the universe had a beginning then its finite. If it didn't have a beginning, then matter is eternal (making it supernatural) and you've managed to stealthily sidestep the question of 'Why'? Namely, why should the universe exist when in fact there is no reason for it to exist (excluding God). I would love to see proof that the universe is infinite. We can hardly even predict tomorrow's weather, but we'll know 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' what the universe was like back into infinity. I'm looking forward to the proof myself.

Quote:

Until then, you're free to put everything into that first split second - God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever.




There's that FSM argument you love so much. Science is about possibility (among other things). I find it interesting that people have turned speculation, theory, and probability into absolute certainty. You've morphed nature into a Flying Spaghettie Monster by trying to remove God. Science can't avoid the fact that the universe is steeped in a supernatural source. Either the oxymoronic supernatural nature, or a supernatural creator. I don't get how you can even begin to try and make my belief look irrational while thinking your belief is somehow enlightened.

Quote:

What is the difference between the above statements? An action by God is certainly a supernatural action.




The difference is pretty simple. There are some things that are simply inescapably unnatural. Namely the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life. I'll stick to the beginning of the universe for now. What I've seen in the last, however many years, is simply a succesive ladder of excuses from secular science.

"Ok, we have to find a way that the universe could exist without God."

"How could it start without God?"

"We don't know yet, but we will know."

Lo and behold, the big bang! Suddenly there was an excuse to believe the universe could start without a creator (maybe not the first excuse, but the first 'serious' one). At least on the surface. But you have problems. You named one of them. The other problem is that it requires a belief that nature can create itself, which goes against everything we know about nature.

The big bang was pretty good for a while, but after a while the idea started to wear thin because there are unavoidable problems.

"Well, we still know that God didn't create the universe. So now we have to figure out how this big bang is possible without God."

Strings! That's right, vibrating strings control the universe. Its only a matter of time until that explains the exact origin of the universe. Another rung on the ladder has gotten you closer to the origin of the universe, but you're still not any closer to answering the big question. Where did it come from? Whether the question is about elements, or strings, the question remains.

I'm sure the ladder could lead to explanations for strings, and so on and so forth. But the ladder will never end. Its just a bunch of excuses.

Quote:

As you've stated earlier, creationists believe that nature's laws, although created by God, are still not good enough to produce life.




Yeah. Is it coincidental that dead elements don't come to life and eventually accidentally cause a consciousness that would understand the universe it accidentally came from. I would call it scientific common sense. But nowadays scientific common sense is that no matter what God can't exist, even if it seems like God does.

Quote:

Thus life required additional supernatural events, like some god physically placing species on earth. That was the line of my arguments and, as to my knowledge, essential creationist faith. Why is this now a "strawman"?




See, I thought you were talking about us attributing the rising of the sun to direct actions by God. We know that God created a self sustaining universe that He doesn't need to tinker with in order to keep it running. That's what's so great about his creation, and another trademark of his work.

The reason I assumed you were giving such a simplistic argument is because you mentioned 'observations of nature'. Spontaneous life goes against all natural observations. So there's no correlation. Even in horribly overexaggerated conditions that are highly unrealistic according to idealistic evolutionary models of early earth, we still couldn't get all of the materials of life to form, nor could we even get the right KINDs of what materials we did get to form. What we found is how exactly nature CANNOT cause life to spontaneously erupt out of non-living chemicals.

Science is with God on this one, I'm afraid. So yes, we do attribute the things that science has proved nature cannot do, to a creator. I fail to see how this is a bad argument to make. If you (and a bunch of other people, and a video camera) saw a dog sprout wings, fly into the air, and begin singing 'Mary Had a Little Lamb' I doubt you would say, "There's that crazy nature, goin at it again." Yet, this is exactly what you do with the origin of life. Or the origin of the universe for that matter.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/26/06 22:53

Irish_Farmer said:
Quote:

Ok, unless you believe that the big bang was the beginning to the universe. Which is the impression I get from many of the big bang believers. If the universe had a beginning then its finite. If it didn't have a beginning, then matter is eternal (making it supernatural) and you've managed to stealthily sidestep the question of 'Why'? Namely, why should the universe exist when in fact there is no reason for it to exist (excluding God). I would love to see proof that the universe is infinite. We can hardly even predict tomorrow's weather, but we'll know 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' what the universe was like back into infinity. I'm looking forward to the proof myself.


LOL.

jcl said:
Quote:

As you've stated earlier, creationists believe that nature's laws, although created by God, are still not good enough to produce life.


Its not that I don't believe God could have set laws in motion to create and direct evolution(theistic evolution), its just that common descent cannot explain the present diversity. Im open to the idea of evolution, it doesn't make me an infidel to believe that we evolved, its just that the idea of all the present species resulting from chance mutation is ridiculous to me. I think that people who believe macro-evolution have a habit of making enormous oversimplifications. There is so much we don't know in science, its ridiculous to make assumptions about common descent based upon morphological similarities.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/27/06 07:37

Quote:

I really don't care too much for astronomy, but I have yet to hear a decent explanation for this.




That's the problem: you won't get the latter without the former.

You do not care about astronomy, i.e. observation of structure and history of the universe, but nevertheless have made up your mind that supernatural events must be involved in this. So you still care - but only if it fits into your belief system! Thus, as the observations obviously contradict anything supernatural, you have no choice but to not care about or ignore astronomy. Just as you've forced to ignore the overwhelming evolution evidence.

I also see that you do not really get the difference between a scientific and a superstitional world view:

Quote:

"Ok, we have to find a way that the universe could exist without God."





On the surface, that's your silly science "strawman" again. But in fact it is the familiar creationist approach, just turned upside down:

"Ok, we have to find a way that life could not exist without supernatural events."

Science does not care about the existence or nonexistence of gods, as long as they are not observable. God is left to religion, supernaturality is left to superstition. The scientific approach - that you'll probably learn when beginning with your biology study - is:

"Let's find a theory that describes our observation of the universe as good as possible."

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

If you really want to see gods or daemons or supernatural forces in nature, you probably will. But keep in mind: God is not on your side. If anything, he's on the side of science. Because if he existed, he'd obviously designed the world in a way consistent with a scientific explanation, and inconsistent with supernaturality. And he'd hate superstition.

Quote:

I suppose the explanation might be that these heavier elements, caused by a supernova, formed clouds that then formed into solar systems, but I suppose I'll have to ask where the proof of this happening is.




This explanation is correct. Nucleosynthesis is basic quantum mechanics (in fact it can be described pretty accurately even with a classical appoach). The proof can be found in any accelerator experiment. And the proof that the same happens in the universe is that we see stars forming this way at several places in our and other galaxies. The composition of elements, and the amount of heavy elements in the interstellar gas is directly observed in spectral absorption lines. Nucleosynthesis of heavy elements is directly observed in supernova spectrae.

But I still have no clue of the reason of your problem with those elements. Do you doubt the existence of heavy elements, or how they were created? Do you think that heavy elements were created by supernatural forces?

Quote:

The energy would be unusable, and the universe would be uninhabitable.




This was your argument, if I remember right, why the universe can not be infinite. I admit that I'm now totally lost. Could you explain what "unuseable energy" is?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/27/06 22:48

Quote:

That's the problem: you won't get the latter without the former.

You do not care about astronomy, i.e. observation of structure and history of the universe, but nevertheless have made up your mind that supernatural events must be involved in this.




Let me just say. I don't not care about astronomy because it offends my beliefs. I just don't care because its not that interesting to me. What little research I've done into it has, if anything, solidified my idea that we were created. However, my main focus of interest in science is biology. That's where I spend most of my time studying and learning, etc. I'm not going to swamp myself with information in every field when I can specialize in one and learn as much as possible about it.

Quote:

Science does not care about the existence or nonexistence of gods, as long as they are not observable.




I don't agree. If God could be observed, then that would automatically place Him within the realm of science in which case scientists would care. Since He cannot be observed, scientists don't care. The way I see it.

Quote:

"Let's find a theory that describes our observation of the universe as good as possible."




Ok. But if my theory seems to explain nature better to me, then why should it matter that it isn't evolution?

Quote:

If you really want to see gods or daemons or supernatural forces in nature, you probably will.




I don't want to see God, believe me. However, I believe that I should see his signature on his creation, which I believe I do. You believe that you should see random chance in the universe, so you do. Silly how that works.

Quote:

he'd obviously designed the world in a way consistent with a scientific explanation, and inconsistent with supernaturality.




I agree, but we've wandered far into the realm of speculation, so I don't have to agree with your theories, because according to science, neither of us is right. We can't recreate the big bang, or evolution, so we just have to look at the natural world and see if it reflects evolution or creation. However, science, as evolutionists are quick to point out when you ask them a tough question, isn't meant to deal with absolutes. Just probability, in this case.

Quote:

And he'd hate superstition.




Can you clarify what in my position involves supserstition? I believe that God created the universe, probably without the big bang, please tell me what he would hate about this.

Quote:

nd the proof that the same happens in the universe is that we see stars forming this way at several places in our and other galaxies.




I was under the impression that we had yet to actually observe a star forming. But that instead we had just observed what we thought would be part of the process of a star forming.

Quote:

Do you doubt the existence of heavy elements, or how they were created?




Nope, I just don't think that planets are created the way that astronomers generally agree that they are. As far as I can tell (from what I've read on scientific websites), stars can only be created in a universe where stars already exist. That sounds like a rather unique problem.

Quote:

Do you think that heavy elements were created by supernatural forces?




I think that God probably created the Earth all at once, without the aid of exploding stars. I think, according to the materialist model, its unlikely that stars would even exist in the universe.

Quote:

This was your argument, if I remember right, why the universe can not be infinite. I admit that I'm now totally lost. Could you explain what "unuseable energy" is?




Well, the universe is expanding is it not? Would this not continually lead the universe on a path towards absolute zero? As stars burn up their fuel, energy is being turned into something relatively 'unusable'. At least if you consider our universe better than a lifeless/dead universe, which I do. In other words, I don't think science allows for the infinite creation of stars unless matter and energy are being fed into the universe from some supernatural source.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/28/06 09:14

Quote:

I don't not care about astronomy because it offends my beliefs. I just don't care because its not that interesting to me.




Ah, ok. Sometimes I misunderstand people because it's hard to imagine for me how someone could not be interested in astronomy .

Quote:

I don't agree. If God could be observed, then that would automatically place Him within the realm of science in which case scientists would care. Since He cannot be observed, scientists don't care. The way I see it.




Yes, that's exactly what I meant to say. Natural science is about the observable.

Quote:

Can you clarify what in my position involves supserstition? I believe that God created the universe, probably without the big bang, please tell me what he would hate about this.




Ok. Of course this is a speculation, but you do not necessarily need to believe in god for speculating about him.

First, the Big Bang is an observable fact (background radiation). Thus god can not have created the universe without the Big Bang... unless under a certain assumption that I'll come to later.

I will first assume that our observations about nature are true. They are not artificially created by a God in order to deceive us. Under this assumption, at a certain time in the past - probably much earlier than 13.7 billion years ago - God created the mechanism that we call "laws of nature". The mere existence of this mechanism then led some undefined time later to the spontaneous creation of our and possibly other universes - precisely following God's plan. The following history of our universe is then descibed by the Big Bang model. The "nature's laws" mechanism led consequently to the evolution of life not only on our, but also on millions - or infinite many - other planets in the universe.

Christians (not your sect, but mainstream Christianity) normally assume that Genesis does not describe the literal creation of the world, but maybe God's fine tuning of the nature mechanism. Earth, sky, animals, Adam etc. existed not in flesh, but as models in God's mind, long before they really came into existence. Much later, the nature mechnanism then produced the desired results just in the way that God had in mind.

God gave Adam a curious, questioning brain, and at the same time gave him lots of things to observe in nature - background radiation, red shift, DNA proofs of a common ancestor etc. Thus we got everything that we need for deriving the mechanism that God originally designed - nature's laws. Obviously, God meant us to completely understand his design. We can then assume that he hates every obstacles in our way of understanding. Those obstacles are superstition: The attempts to explain nature not by His designed natural laws, but by supernatural events. If he wanted us to believe in creationism, he had certainly not given us the possibility to directly observe the evolutional relation of all species in their DNA record.

Ok, but what if our observations of nature are not true but misleading? This would be the other possibility: God has directly created the universe, not billions of years ago but much later, at an undefined date in the past, like 4000 BC. Maybe he was in a hurry.

In that case he has intentionally created our world in a way as if it were billions of years old. There is no other explanation for all astronomical observations. You have dismissed the possibility that he placed fossils in the earth, but I see absolutely no reason why this should be "nonsense" and on the other hand believe in that he placed photons in space so that we can see far-away stars.

Obviously, there's an intention behind all of this. God wants us to use our brains, and derive the laws of nature even if, as in this case, nature didn't come into existence according to those laws. Maybe he has some plan with us humans that requires our understanding of those laws of nature. In this case however he would hate even more everything that diverts us from our understanding.

This is the reason why I think that no matter how and when God created the world, he hates superstition, and especially creationism.

Quote:

Well, the universe is expanding is it not? Would this not continually lead the universe on a path towards absolute zero? As stars burn up their fuel, energy is being turned into something relatively 'unusable'.




Yes, but that's not an argument against the infinity of the universe. In fact it will happen no matter whether the universe is finite or infinite. More details in this thread:

http://www.coniserver.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/5/Number/618564/an/0/page/3#Post618564
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/28/06 14:15

Quote:

This is the reason why I think that no matter how and when God created the world, he hates superstition, and especially creationism.


This is an interesting speculation, interesting to me because I haven't heard it before, also interesting because it is mostly true. God WOULD hate superstition if it interfered with understanding the universe. I think what I would disagree with here is that "superstition"(as you call it) neccessarily blocks understanding of our world.

As I have often stated, the bible is not a science manual, to my "sect" of Christians the bible is a manual of the super-natural, not the natural.

So to make a long story short I would agree with you 100%, God would hate the supernatural if it interfered with understanding the natural; but I think He would also hate the natural sciences if they interfered with understanding the super-natural.

You seem to believe that God has wound up the great watch of the universe and just lets it tick away with no more interference, we believe that also, but we also believe that by prayer and other methods (such as events and prophecies) God would also intervene with the natural.

Example: Jesus walking on the water, there were several natural laws changed during this miracle. When God changes natural law He is demonstating Himself as God.

The supernatural is "proof" of God.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/29/06 23:19

Quote:

I will first assume that our observations about nature are true. They are not artificially created by a God in order to deceive us.




That's a good place to start.

Quote:

Christians (not your sect, but mainstream Christianity) normally assume that Genesis does not describe the literal creation of the world, but maybe God's fine tuning of the nature mechanism.




You would have to purposely misread the bible to make this assumption.

I just take this as they're confused.

Quote:

Those obstacles are superstition: The attempts to explain nature not by His designed natural laws, but by supernatural events.




I fail to see how any of what I've said relating to science is superstition. According to the definition, you believe a lot of superstition yourself.

Quote:

If he wanted us to believe in creationism, he had certainly not given us the possibility to directly observe the evolutional relation of all species in their DNA record.




You can't just mix a lie with truth and expect the lie/guess/whatever to become true by association. When we see common aspects of DNA, we literally only know for sure that there is DNA in common. Every other conclusion except that DNA is similar is merely speculation. At that point its just as correct to say that its a reflection of common design as it is common ancestry.

What's more important is noticing how even the small differences in DNA (chimps<->humans) are an overwhelming barrier that mutations cannot overcome.

Quote:

In that case he has intentionally created our world in a way as if it were billions of years old.




I'll touch on this later, because this is more of a problem for you than it is me.

Quote:

and on the other hand believe in that he placed photons in space so that we can see far-away stars.




I don't believe that.

Quote:

and especially creationism.




...

Quote:

Yes, but that's not an argument against the infinity of the universe. In fact it will happen no matter whether the universe is finite or infinite.




I wasn't aware that energy went through infinite cycles. If you look back infinitely into the past, the universe would have become useless for life infinity ago. I would think this would cause all sorts of mathematical problems. All matter in the universe would be as far apart as it can get in an infinite amount of time, and energy would be converted to 'unuseable' form infinity ago too.

I thought infinite time couldn't exist because it caused all sorts of paradoxes. Or am I wrong?



Ok, back to my point. My theory would predict that, even if there are certain calculations that might lead to an old earth, there will be some that lead to a young earth. In fact, it won't be compeletely certain. Salinity of the ocean, reef growth, etc all give a maximum young(er) age. Oh yeah! And the moon is escaping, giving a young age even for our solar system. The oldest tree is also about 5000 years old, strangely enough (which could fall within the range of the biblical flood if you consider that dual rings can form in a year). Wonder why that would be.

My theory also predicts that some dating methods which should correlate will not, which is what happens. No one knows for sure, and even as a creationist, the only reason I'm sure that the earth is young is because I think the bible says so. However, that isn't scientific reason, but I think I can scientifically say that we can't really know for sure. If the earth was created with an apparent age, then there should be other evidence that it was created that way. Which I think we find. There is more young earth evidence, but I'll leave it at that for now because I'm tired.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/30/06 15:45

Quote:

I fail to see how any of what I've said relating to science is superstition. According to the definition, you believe a lot of superstition yourself.




We had this already. Superstitions are based on beliefs in supernatural forces:

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

According to the common definition, creationism is a theory based on superstition (= actions by supernatural forces), but science isn't.

Not all bible-based belief is superstition. For instance, the Ptolemean world view - the assumption that the earth is the unmoving center of the universe - is scientificially wrong, but not a superstition.

Quote:

When we see common aspects of DNA, we literally only know for sure that there is DNA in common. Every other conclusion except that DNA is similar is merely speculation.




It's a lot more than speculation, but I accept that it's not a direct observation. Let's call it just "evidence".

Quote:

I thought infinite time couldn't exist because it caused all sorts of paradoxes. Or am I wrong?




There are no paradoxes with infinite time, but I was referring to an universe of infinite size, not infinite time.

Quote:

My theory would predict that, even if there are certain calculations that might lead to an old earth, there will be some that lead to a young earth. In fact, it won't be compeletely certain. Salinity of the ocean, reef growth, etc all give a maximum young(er) age. Oh yeah! And the moon is escaping, giving a young age even for our solar system.




Hmm. In this very thread, some weeks ago, you have made fun of Ran Man who used those very arguments for a young earth. Why are you now posting the same low-level stuff?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/30/06 18:12

Quote:

We had this already. Superstitions are based on beliefs in supernatural forces:




Evolutionists love to redefine things. Superstition is a belief (in this case) that is maintained despite the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

You have a superstitious belief in impossible chance. I have a non-superstitious belief in a creator. What I believe about that creator could be said to be superstitious, but the creator exists nonetheless.

I'm not going to do as good a job as someone else in explaining why, because I'm too lazy. But here's a link which also touches on why infinite time cannot be used in regards to the universe.

http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/doesGodexist/index.html

Quote:

For instance, the Ptolemean world view - the assumption that the earth is the unmoving center of the universe - is scientificially wrong, but not a superstition.




If anyone believed this today, they would be superstitious. This goes against the laws of nature.

Quote:

It's a lot more than speculation, but I accept that it's not a direct observation. Let's call it just "evidence".




Evidence of what? Its evidence that we were designed by the same designer, just as much as its evidence that we have a common ancestor. And if its evidence for both, then its evidence for neither.

Quote:

but I was referring to an universe of infinite size, not infinite time.





No paradoxes with infinite time? I have to disagree. But they kind of touch on it in that link I gave you. Maybe you'll have a rebuttle.

However, if the universe is infinite in size then your big bang has a problem. How could the universe go from the size of a period, to infinity in ANY amount of time. Unless time is infinite too, which creates more problems than it solves.

Quote:

Hmm. In this very thread, some weeks ago, you have made fun of Ran Man who used those very arguments for a young earth. Why are you now posting the same low-level stuff?




I made fun of ran man? I have to see this. I think there's a difference between giving someone a hard time, and making fun of them. But perhaps I also mistook his point, because I don't remember him using these as arguments for a young earth. The only similar event I remember is him trying to use the specific conditions of earth and all of that to prove that we were created.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/30/06 22:53

Quote:

Evolutionists love to redefine things. Superstition is a belief (in this case) that is maintained despite the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.




This is the first time I've heard this definition of superstition. However it's really not that different from JCL's quoted definition.

Quote:

Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Most of us have no problem accepting this principle. We assume its truth in virtually every aspect in our daily lives. Our experience always confirms it and never denies it. But surprisingly philosophers have been unable to prove its veracity.

Nevertheless, it has always been a fundamental first principle of philosophy and science that "from nothing, nothing comes", "being cannot come from non-being". Even the great sceptic David Hume, who argued that we could not prove the causal principle through ordinary means, still believed it to be true and thought a denial of it was absurd, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition that anything might arise without a cause."2

Surely it is more reasonable to hold to this premise than to believe that things pop into existence out of nothing and by nothing.




It's not really that surprising ... 'cause' is something semi-artificial, a bit like 'time' is.

Anyways, this is where the fun starts, because creationism seems to me pretty much like 'things popping out of nowhere'. It seems more likely to me that something comes from something else, be it smaller things, larger things or whatever. Creation itself implies making something. Creator or no creator, I think most of us here will agree that from nothing comes nothing, and most of the theories about the origin of life do not claim the opposite of this. Creationism does however.

Because; how can a God create matter? Magic or some kind of powers? Energy? Magical powers don't exist just like witchcraft, so that would be superstition.

You don't know how a God would do it, even if it could, but he would nevertheless make something from nothing? Sounds pretty unlikely to me, since nothing we know of in this world is created or 'came into existance' from nothing. And you are talking about our socalled 'assumptions'...?!

When we know enough about the building blocks used in the process of how life came to existance, then we come closer to where life's origin lies.

Edit and slightly off topic: That site jumps to some weird conclusions or am I wrong here?;

Quote:

Suppose you withdrew all the green books. How many books are there left in the library? There would still be an infinite number of books in the library even though we just withdrew an infinite number and found a way to get them home! Suppose you withdrew the books numbered 4,5,6...and so on. Now how many books are left? THREE! Something surely is wrong here! One time we subtract an infinite number of books and we're left with an infinite number; the next time we subtract an infinite number and we're left with three - a clear logical contradiction. Since our hypothesis leads to a contradiction, the hypothesis must be false - a library with an actual infinite number of books cannot exist.




The author isn't talking about infinity anymore the moment he sticks a number on those books and substracts. In this mathematical example he extracts the infinity part; "4,5,6...and so on", so it's no wonder it's not infinite anymore. What contradiction is he talking about then?

(Besides that, it's not unimaginable that there could still be an infinite amount of numbers before number 4.)

Cheers
Posted By: capanno

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/31/06 07:33

Quote:

Because; how can a God create matter? Magic or some kind of powers? Energy? Magical powers don't exist just like witchcraft, so that would be superstition.




You see, thats why your trying to figure it out by human standards.

Its also impossible to walk on water, and calm a storm by speaking to it. God is almighty. We cant even try to grasp it.

People always say demons and magic and stuff either doesnt exist, or involves crazy people. Wait untill you have a 1st hand encounter mr phemox.
Posted By: jcl

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/31/06 09:16

The Michael Horner website is indeed interesting - and sort of funny. This person seems to be not unintelligent, but he apparently never looked into any mathematics or physics book that was written later than the 15th century.

His "god proof" was from Thomas Aquinas. His "thermodynamics proof" just proves that he has no clue about thermodynamics. And his green book "proof" of the impossibility of infinity was already made fun of by Galileo Galilei in his fictional dialogue with the dimwit "Simplicio", in the 16th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_paradox

As to the question about the Big Bang and the infinity of the universe:

Some people seem to assume that "Big Bang" means the universe sort of exploded from a point. However, nowhere in the Big Bang model you'll find any assumption about the initial size or previous history of the universe. Nowhere does the theory claim that time and space began with the Big Bang. It's quite likely that the universe was already infinite at that time. The Big Bang affected only the density and temperature of the universe, but not necessarily its size. If you multiply infinity with any expansion factor, you'll still get - infinity.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/31/06 12:36

Quote:

Its also impossible to walk on water, and calm a storm by speaking to it. God is almighty. We cant even try to grasp it.




We don't need to grasp any of those things when there's no shred of evidence such things actually happened at all. So why not look at it in a more realistic way? Seeing is believing.

Quote:

People always say demons and magic and stuff either doesnt exist, or involves crazy people. Wait untill you have a 1st hand encounter mr phemox.




I don't think that would convince me either, I don't believe in exorcism either. Yes, witnessing that might not be fully 1st hand, but I do think it involves crazy or 'psychologically unstable' people who are mistakenly thought to be possesed by demons. Having said that, I don't think I will ever be possessed by demons, so I'm not going to wait for that. Doesn't the bible say that 'when you believe, be prepared because then the world will become a more hostile environment' or something along those lines? That would mean I'll be fine.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 05/31/06 22:37

Hm, JCL I think you sidestepped the point that Horner made. In fact, you basically stated half of what he did. But I don't have time to respond now. I will later.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: evolution vs creation - 06/01/06 00:43

Ok, this one should be easier to manage now.

Quote:

This is the first time I've heard this definition of superstition. However it's really not that different from JCL's quoted definition.




There is an important distinction, but its going to be harder for a materialist to see (no offense, everyone has a bias ). By its definition, the belief in a creator is not superstitious. In fact, its the opposite of. It would be superstitious to believe that matter can create itself, because this goes against the laws of nature.

Quote:

It's not really that surprising ... 'cause' is something semi-artificial, a bit like 'time' is.




This is the sort of confusion that secular humanism/materialism allows. Time exists, I can assure you. If not, then I'll just jump back to a few days ago when I lost my wallet and stop myself from losing it.

Except I never would have been able to lose it in the first place.

The quote you're referring to admits that they can't prove 'cause.' However, that doesn't really mean anything to a rational person, which is the sort of logic I've seen you use time and again. For instance, I can't really prove gravity, but I can prove its effects. Our experience always confirms it, just like Horner said.

In fact, to say that something can exist without cause is completely irrational. Unless you can point me to an example of something on the scale of our universe existing without cause? Even a fraction of the scale?

Quote:

Anyways, this is where the fun starts, because creationism seems to me pretty much like 'things popping out of nowhere'.




So cause can't be proved, but since creationism (according to you) doesn't have a cause, you say its ridiculous. This just proves my point.

Furthermore, this statement says more about you than creationism. You've rejected God so thoroughly that you can't even consider him within the safety of rhetoric. God is the cause. Things in our universe didn't pop up out of nowhere, that would be atheistic creation.

Quote:

It seems more likely to me that something comes from something else, be it smaller things, larger things or whatever.




Yup, everything has a cause.

Quote:

Creationism does [postulate that things come from nowhere] however.




No it does not.

Quote:

Because; how can a God create matter?




You've got a bigger problem than me here. How can NOTHING create matter?

Quote:

Magic or some kind of powers? Energy?




I admit that I don't know how God did it. That would make me a god in some ways, because my knowledge would be supernatural.

These are all physical constructs. I imagine God's power lies in something completely indescribable by any language we could invent in the physical universe. Nor could it be comprehended. We can't comprehend His power, but we can comprehend the effect of His power.

Quote:

Magical powers don't exist just like witchcraft, so that would be superstition.




That's a strawman, since no one seriously thinks that God used physical means to create the universe in which physical means exist.

Quote:

Sounds pretty unlikely to me, since nothing we know of in this world is created or 'came into existance' from nothing. And you are talking about our socalled 'assumptions'...?!




Ok, and your solution to this 'problem' is that instead of an all-powerful God, the all-powerful Nothing created matter. Sounds likely.

Quote:

When we know enough about the building blocks used in the process of how life came to existance, then we come closer to where life's origin lies.




No. If you've been keeping tabs on origin of life research you'll notice they aren't trying to figure out the physical properties of matter, they're trying to find a certain combination of matter that could act as a bridge between non-living matter and living matter.

Quote:

The author isn't talking about infinity anymore the moment he sticks a number on those books and substracts.




Yeah, that's kind of the point. But I won't get into that just yet.

Quote:

(Besides that, it's not unimaginable that there could still be an infinite amount of numbers before number 4.)




Ok, then imagine that he subtracted all books labelled 4 or more, and then subtracted all books labelled 0 or less.

Quote:

And his green book "proof" of the impossibility of infinity was already made fun of by Galileo Galilei in his fictional dialogue with the dimwit "Simplicio", in the 16th century.




I would agree if it was even referring to the same thing, but you missed one of the points horner made. In mathematics, it works. In reality, it does not. I can't be applied to the physical realm.

His point was to say that infinity works in math, just like Galileo pointed out. However, in reality, it fails miserably.

Quote:

Some people seem to assume that "Big Bang" means the universe sort of exploded from a point.




If by 'assume' you mean, 'extrapolated it from various quotes by materialists' then yes. Its in textbooks.

Quote:


We don't need to grasp any of those things when there's no shred of evidence such things actually happened at all. So why not look at it in a more realistic way?




There's no 'evidence' of the big bang either, but I'm sure you don't find it that hard to believe. We know the universe is expanding (probably) and has a general pattern of background radiation. Beyond that you can insert anything you want, big bang, flying sphagetti monster, etc.

Quote:

Seeing is believing.




Quite. In that case you won't mind if I don't believe macro evolution or the big bang. But then you'll excuse me for believing in God. I can see the universe, I can see the laws that reveal its inability to create itself. Therefore, seeing is believing and I believe in God.

Quote:

Doesn't the bible say that 'when you believe, be prepared because then the world will become a more hostile environment' or something along those lines? That would mean I'll be fine.




Its funny watching the way atheists view the bible. Playing the 'devil's advocate' as you do in a sense here, you're admitting that you'll trade your soul because people will go as far as despising, persecuting, making fun of, and even killing you. Interesting.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: evolution vs creation - 06/01/06 01:49

Quote:

Quote:

Doesn't the bible say that 'when you believe, be prepared because then the world will become a more hostile environment' or something along those lines? That would mean I'll be fine.




Its funny watching the way atheists view the bible. Playing the 'devil's advocate' as you do in a sense here, you're admitting that you'll trade your soul because people will go as far as despising, persecuting, making fun of, and even killing you. Interesting.




I see what you mean, but I've meant it slightly different. Who is going to fall for a trap construction like that? It's basically stating that you better believe in it on one hand, but on the other hand it claims there's no way back and the world will become more hostile. It seems to me you've sold your soul instead my friend. Anyways, back on topic and I'm not going to sell my soul, since there is no buyer anyway.

Quote:

The quote you're referring to admits that they can't prove 'cause.' However, that doesn't really mean anything to a rational person, which is the sort of logic I've seen you use time and again. For instance, I can't really prove gravity, but I can prove its effects. Our experience always confirms it, just like Horner said.

In fact, to say that something can exist without cause is completely irrational. Unless you can point me to an example of something on the scale of our universe existing without cause? Even a fraction of the scale?




I have to admit that I've mixed up 'purpose' and 'cause' a bit earlier, however it doesn't really matter.
Cause in my opinion doesn't really exist at all, or can be many things.

For example push one of your keyboard's buttons. Let's assume you've pushed the button with number [1/!] Then what caused the button to be pushed and the number 1 to be displayed on screen? Was it your action of actually pressing the button or was it your mind causing you to take action? Or was it my text telling you to do so as an example? Well there you go, at least 3 possible and very true causes. One could even go further and state that the manufacturer cause the button to be made and thát made it possible in the first place to use that particular button, so infact the manufacturer caused the 1 to appear on screen. Yes, it's farfetched off course, however without the manufacturer making that button, there would be no button to push.
The reason why you won't find anything without a cause, is because a cause can be so much things. The reason I've mentioned 'time' is because 1 minute is time, 2 hours is time but millions of years is also time. Time is a natural but artificial indicator or factor in order for our minds to make sure events that happen make sense in a way. The same way that we need 'causes' in order for events to make even more sense.
Yes, actions require time in a way, however you can label those required moments with anything you want, we've just agreed upon the 'seconds, minutes, hours'(there's more to it) time system. You see, it's artificial. Having said that, this does not imply it's useless, same goes for 'cause'.

If God exists then he would have a cause, right? Nothing can exist without cause, you've stated yourself that no rational thinking person can state otherwise. Infact I would go even further, if God exists, then what caused or created God? You see, it doesn't make sense. Infinite amounts of creators, (who created the creator of God?) or another cause would be needed for a God to even possibly exist. I thought the Bible said there's only 1 God, so that would clearly leave that question unsatisfiedly open, or did your God came from nothing?

I believe the origin of everything lies in the fact that it came from something, not that it came from nothing. Infact there's no evidence we know off that something can come from nothing, so I definately don't believe in such a theory, however when you go far enough back in your theory, you do state that something came from nothing.

Quote:


Seeing is believing.



Quite. In that case you won't mind if I don't believe macro evolution or the big bang. But then you'll excuse me for believing in God. I can see the universe, I can see the laws that reveal its inability to create itself. Therefore, seeing is believing and I believe in God.




You may believe whatever you want, that's your right off course.
However you haven't literally seen God, so why do you believe in him anyways? We find all sorts of causes for events that have happened and none of any event you can possibly think off explicitely needs a God as cause.

We may very well be looking at the effects of explainable or not yet explainable causes, but where's the evidence that clears this gap so to speak and makes a God as cause 'needed' in the first place? Give me one example of an event that needs a God.

Cheers
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: evolution vs creation - 06/01/06 06:02

Quote:

back on topic and I'm not going to sell my soul, since there is no buyer anyway.




I'll buy it... I need to fill some soul gems...
Posted By: jcl

cause 101 - 06/01/06 09:37

In the last time, strange claims were made about cause in several threads here, like this:

Quote:

everything has a cause.



and this

Quote:

God, who is outside of cause.




However, neither the first nor the second claim was given any reasons for. In fact the first statement is plain wrong, and the second one is at least self-contradictory in its context.

First: We know that on the atomic scale things happen all the time without a cause. An example for this is nuclear decay. It's predicted by quantum theory and proven by experiment that radioactive atoms spontaneously split without any internal mechanism triggering this event:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Another example of an event happening without a cause is the spontaneous creation of matter out of nothing, which also happens all the time around us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

So, think about this when telling someone "everything has a cause" the next time. Most events in our world have no cause.

Second: Is God outside of cause?

Yes, in the sense of modern religion, where God is considered as an idea of ethics or a principle of creation. You can then assume that this principle is an axiom, and thus has no cause.

No, in the sense of a superstitious religion, which believes that one or several gods control magical or supernatural forces within the realm of our nature - for instance for creating animals out of nothing. This places God or God's force as a supernatural, physical entity within our universe. And then, when you believe everyting in our universe has a cause, your supernatural God must have a cause too (unless he's an event on an atomic scale).

This is just a little suggestion that platitudes like "everything has a cause" are not always useable as arguments in a discussion.
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: cause 101 - 06/01/06 12:41

I partly disagree. Although my reply could turn out as an affirmation!

My first thought: I disagree, because your examples are from the borders of the _possibility_ of our observations, means we have only particles and waves to measure particles and waves, means our tools to measure are as big as the measures they can't measure smaller things. We still expect that there are causes that we cannot observe, probably never can observe.

Second, we are not concerned about these non-caused events, because we can observe certain conditions of probability that these events happen.

Third, we know of these effects at the atomic level, but we expect to find relations of cause and effect at every higher level (chemical, biological, social).

Okey, that are my first and second and third thought!

But, then I remember socail and psychological events which happen without cause.

Look at the person running amok in Berlin. Unpredictabel, like the weather, like any deterministic chaos, any self-referential system... (ah, finally reached my favourite subject! )

But, at least, we, even scientists, look at such events as the non-avoidable rest of risk.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: cause 101 - 06/01/06 13:46

Quote:

First: We know that on the atomic scale things happen all the time without a cause. An example for this is nuclear decay. It's predicted by quantum theory and proven by experiment that radioactive atoms spontaneously split without any internal mechanism triggering this event


How do you explain the existence of radioactivity in the elements to begin with?

How did vacuum energy come to exist in the universe?

How did the resonance fields responsible for the Casimir effect come into existence?

Everything has a cause, and a beginning, regardless of your dogma. If you cant see that everything has to have come from somewhere then I cant help you, your brain wiring works differently than mine. In order to believe that phenomena can exist without a cause, you have to close your mind in so many ways. I find that thinking too limited and narrow minded.

Quote:

Second: Is God outside of cause?


Matter and energy couldnt have created itself. You need an original cause which is outside time,space and matter to create time space and matter. A good example is a computer, the answer to a computer's creation is not found within itself. A computer could not create itself from the inside-out.

Once again, its just a different thinking paradigm. If someone is content to live their lives without questioning where it all came from, then I envy them, I could never ignore the obvious, or distort the truth, the clarity of creation is the natural logic, there is so much intuition you have to discard in order to free yourself from God. Its ridiculous. Ignorance is bliss, and you are free to be as ignorant as you choose. Freedom to choose is the God-like nature.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause 101 - 06/01/06 15:31

Pappenheimer: You misunderstood. Physics does not claim that there are causes we cannot observe. It claims that there are no causes at all for the mentioned effects. This is in fact one of the most famous and surprising statements of quantum mechanics. If there were some unobservable causes, the experiments to Bell's theorem had a different outcome. So we know that there aren't such causes.

But you're right that on a higher level we normally have a defined cause -> effect relationship. Normally, but not always. Events on an atomic level can influence biological effects, for instance in the notorious Schrödinger's Cat experiment.

Quantum effects lacking causes are, by the way, already industrially exploited. For instance for creating true random generators that generate an unpredictable random sequence. Or in the future, for quantum cryptography.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause 101 - 06/01/06 23:22

Quote:

I see what you mean, but I've meant it slightly different. Who is going to fall for a trap construction like that? It's basically stating that you better believe in it on one hand, but on the other hand it claims there's no way back and the world will become more hostile.




I don't think they meant it would make the world more hostile in general, just more hostile towards christians to pressure them into not being a christian, if you will.

In fact, the bible seems to say that if everyone would 'turn back', things would become very garden of eden-ish.

edit: Maybe I'm mistunderstanding what you're saying. If you can quote the verse that might clear things up, because we might be talking about two completely different ideas.

Quote:

It seems to me you've sold your soul instead my friend.




This seemed to me, to be something of a non sequitor.

Quote:

For example push one of your keyboard's buttons. Let's assume you've pushed the button with number [1/!] Then what caused the button to be pushed and the number 1 to be displayed on screen? Was it your action of actually pressing the button or was it your mind causing you to take action? Or was it my text telling you to do so as an example? Well there you go, at least 3 possible and very true causes. One could even go further and state that the manufacturer cause the button to be made and thát made it possible in the first place to use that particular button, so infact the manufacturer caused the 1 to appear on screen. Yes, it's farfetched off course, however without the manufacturer making that button, there would be no button to push.
The reason why you won't find anything without a cause, is because a cause can be so much things.




This is logically false. All you did was denote a chain of cause-and-effect. That doesn't mean that there was no cause along the way.

Consumer demand is the cause that creates the effect of the manufacturer, who is the cause of the creation of the keyboard, you telling me to hit 1 has the effect of changing my brain waves, which has the effect of my using my brain to send an electric pulse to the muscles in my hand, the pressure of my finger on the key has the effect of a number being displayed on screen. Cause and effect. But more importantly, cause. Just because the chain of events is made up of many causes, does not mean that all of those causes are the SAME cause. Cause exists.

Quote:

The reason I've mentioned 'time' is because 1 minute is time, 2 hours is time but millions of years is also time. Time is a natural but artificial indicator or factor in order for our minds to make sure events that happen make sense in a way. The same way that we need 'causes' in order for events to make even more sense.
Yes, actions require time in a way, however you can label those required moments with anything you want, we've just agreed upon the 'seconds, minutes, hours'(there's more to it) time system. You see, it's artificial.




Maybe the way the symbolism of time in our heads is artificial, but time does exist. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to slap labels like minutes, seconds, etc onto it. If there is no time, then when did the big bang happen?

Quote:

If God exists then he would have a cause, right? Nothing can exist without cause, you've stated yourself that no rational thinking person can state otherwise.




I'll get into this when I respond to JCLs post.

Quote:

However you haven't literally seen God, so why do you believe in him anyways? We find all sorts of causes for events that have happened and none of any event you can possibly think off explicitely needs a God as cause.




Well, the universe for one, life for another. Evolutionists love to talk about thermodynamics, but apparently they have no sense of what it is if they think life can happen accidentally.

Well, actually I KNOW a lot of them don't know anything about thermodynamics when they bring up snowflakes and crystals.

Quote:

Give me one example of an event that needs a God.




You. Creation of the universe.

Quote:

First: We know that on the atomic scale things happen all the time without a cause. An example for this is nuclear decay. It's predicted by quantum theory and proven by experiment that radioactive atoms spontaneously split without any internal mechanism triggering this event:




If its spontaneous, then why can we slap absolutes like half-life onto radioactive atoms? Surely, if it just happened randomly then the value wouldn't always be constant.

Furthermore, this simply puts a gap in the chain. Some cause has the effect of matter. With matter in existence, another cause has the effect of making some material radioactive. Then, nothing has the effect of causing decay (maybe). However, you can't throw out the whole chain, just because you don't know one of the links.

Without a cause for matter, then there's nothing to be made radioactive, so indirectly it still has a cause. But this is somewhat beside your point. Either way, from researching it further, some people said there was a cause for it. And no, not on creationist websites where I doubt they would even care about the subject.

Unless of course you're right about matter being made spontaneously. But let's take a look at that.

You've simply clouded the problem. I take it, from reading your links, that you say matter can be spontaneously created by black holes with virtual particles? This doesn't sound like matter being created from nothing. It just sounds like slapping a scientific theory on the statement, "Matter comes from the great beyond!" In a sense.

Quote:

Second: Is God outside of cause?




Here's the problem I've noticed that materialists have. By your very nature, you're so convinced that all there is, is the universe, that you can't even imagine anything beyond it. Just consider it in a rhetorical fashion for a moment.

However, you keep speaking of God in the sense that he was created, by Himself, along with the universe. Which makes absolutely no sense. You talk as if He plays by the rules of our universe, which He would not.

In essence, you've said that things can happen without a cause. Ignoring for the moment that we may not know the cause, this just takes us back to the original problem, because without the universe already in existence, we find that none of these causeless events even occur.

Of course, I could have been reading those links wrong. I would have had to have followed a hundred links in order to completely catch up on something that you seem to be fairly familiar with. Which I may well do, I found it all mildly fascinating.

Quote:

Look at the person running amok in Berlin. Unpredictabel, like the weather, like any deterministic chaos, any self-referential system...




That doesn't mean we can't partially grasp it. Certainly we can find what in the brain triggers deviant behavior, though we may not be able to completely grasp it or predict it. There are some things we'll never know. Humans don't act strange, become serial killers, or what-have-you for no reason. There's a cause for it. We won't be able to nail stuff like that, and the weather down anytime in the near future because its so absolutely complex. But we can at least grasp the basic cause-and-effect relationship.

Though I tentatively, generally agree with what you said in your post besides that.



Anyway, whether or not these things really happen for no reason at all, still doesn't disprove my point. They happen, because something caused the universe to exist in which they can happen for no reason. This isn't a direct relationship, but its still a requisite.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: cause 101 - 06/01/06 23:36

Quote:

Everything has a cause, and a beginning, regardless of your dogma. If you cant see that everything has to have come from somewhere then I cant help you, your brain wiring works differently than mine. In order to believe that phenomena can exist without a cause, you have to close your mind in so many ways. I find that thinking too limited and narrow minded.




Ok, so where does your God come from? What caused it to be allpowerfull? Assuming it has always been around is proof of limited thinking and narrow mindedness if you ask me.
But I do partly agree with you, it's hard to grasp the fact that something might not have a cause at all, however it's questionable if this fact is in your religion's advantage or not...

Quote:

Matter and energy couldnt have created itself. You need an original cause which is outside time,space and matter to create time space and matter.




Time doesn't require a creation, it would be there even if there's no universe with events or no space at all, it just would be useless, space doesn't need a creation either, can there be something like anti-space or no-space? (an object blocking a certain amount of space, still indicates the existence of space in that particular area.) If there ís anti-space, then it's irrelevant, since we can only move through space, not anti-space. As for matter, if there's time and space and things can spontaniously come into existence simply because they can (no cause or no visible or provable cause), then I still don't see a reason for any God to be involved in the process. It's not obvious at all unlike you've stated. How did God create matter? Did he clap his hands and voíla, there you go the universe was born? A theory involving a God has the same problem, creating matter from nothing, assuming there was nothing before there was something.

Quote:

Anyway, whether or not these things really happen for no reason at all, still doesn't disprove my point. They happen, because something caused the universe to exist in which they can happen for no reason. This isn't a direct relationship, but its still a requisite.




Far from a direct relationship off course, besides, stating something exist simply because it can, is no cause on itself, only an observation. It doesn't prove and might not be possible to prove wether or not the existence of the universe and those things that happen without a cause are infact related. Let alone the fact wether or not any of those things were created in the first place.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause 101 - 06/02/06 00:35

This line of argument is absolutely pointless. You guys see the universe as the be all and end all. You can't even rhetorically consider anything outside of the universe. Your version of imagining something 'outside' the universe is to say that it has physical properties, which would place it squarely 'within' our universe.

I think we've reached a stand still because this is one area science can't directly touch, and it comes down to our worldview. I say that there's something universally incomprehensible as an outside cause to our universe. You apparently can't even imagine this concept, and instead keep trying to throw physical properties on something upon which physical properties cannot be thrown.

Look at what you're doing. When you try to consider a God, who is physical in no way. You start adding physical properties to him. You can't look beyond the shroud of our existence, and I think that explains your worldview a bit (for better or worse, I don't know). To you, even hypothetically there cannot be anything except what's in our universe.

However, you can't escape that matter must have a cause. Reality doesn't just pop out of thin air. If you follow this to its obvious conclusion, then you might understand something about the nature of God. But you mentally cannot. What is blocking you from doing this, even from within the safe confines of rhetoric (which means considering alien ideas doesn't have to offend your beliefs), I don't know. Its almost as if you've purposefully cut yourself off from a certain line of thinking. Although, perhaps some of it has to do with the fact that you're more interested in proving me wrong, than considering other viewpoints.

I have no problem looking at things from your viewpoint. I used to agree with you, there was a time I said to myself, "We're alone in the universe." That was when I became an atheist after being a 'christian' (I put it in quotes because I believed in God, but I didn't really have a reason to care that he existed so I just smoked weed and had sex all the time). Its easy for me to consider the universe as being all there as (although I don't see it that way generally), and I can grasp the way you look at the world. But you guys seem to be unable to do the opposite. It would be the equivelant of you saying that God doesn't exist because matter can create itself out of absolute nothingness. And my counterargument being, "What, is matter sitting off in heaven somewhere? Is it incomprehensible?" I couldn't possibly argue your point that way, because all I'm doing is creating a strawman by not looking at things other than from within my static worldview. Obviously I'm not even talking about the same matter you are, because I'm putting your matter within my worldview, and it conflicts.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: cause 101 - 06/02/06 01:12

There's no point in wanting to 'prove you wrong', that's not my motivation, it's my argumentation.

Yes, you could say that different worldviews don't even allow to see other views correct, because you can't believe in 2 worldviews at the same time and use the right 'beliefs' accordingly. I disagree though, that this makes the debate pointless. We see a lot of pros and cons for both worldviews, which is good. A lot of arguments have passed through against God, but also some arguments against evolution have passed through. (yes, this is meant purposely biased, because it's my personal judgement at the same time. ). Being objective is relative, because our worldview defines our opinions, being convinced about something doesn't really aid in this. We just have to live with that, I nonetheless encourage you to go on with this debate.

Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: cause 101 - 06/02/06 02:46

Quote:

Ok, so where does your God come from? What caused it to be allpowerfull? Assuming it has always been around is proof of limited thinking and narrow mindedness if you ask me.


No I am not limited in thinking of an unlimited God. This thread is for talking about the infinite and God is infinite,by the very definition of God. There are no limits on my mind.

Quote:

Time doesn't require a creation


Perhaps, but time as we know it needed a creation. All the laws that govern nature and the universe depend upon time as we know it. For example the speed of light would be impossible to calculate without a time referential.

However God has no beginning, so He doesnt have the same concept of time as we do.

You can ask me what God's cause was, and then ask where that came from, and then ask where that came from for an infinte amount of times but eventually you have to settle on an original cause which has existed from time immemorial.

So hopefully you can understand the point that I am trying to make when I say that the original cause would have to had been seperate from the effect.

God would have been seperate from time as we know it. As a matter of fact according to the Bible, time is almost meaningless to God, because the Bible says that "a day is like a thousand years to the Lord"

So as you said, time does not have to be created. But time for US started with the point in time in which this universe came into existence.

Quote:

space doesn't need a creation either


Once again, our space needs a creation. The Bible talks about heaven and hell. Neither of these places exist in "our space" or "our universe".

Quote:

As for matter, if there's time and space and things can spontaniously come into existence simply because they can (no cause or no visible or provable cause), then I still don't see a reason for any God to be involved in the process


Because all matter couldnt have spontaneously generated, there has to be a source.


Once again, if your mind can only accept what you can observe, or what you have knowledge of I really think you are limited. I am not condemning you for this limited thinking, I am just pointing out that for me personally I must allow my thoughts the freedom of faith and belief. To me personally, I would be denying intuition and instinct within my own mind, and I dont like to deny my mind

We Christians do not deny science at all, becuase that also would be a limit. We accept science, but we accept God also, which we perceive as superior to science.

It is really a question of who or what God means to you. You say that you have no God, yet you most certainly do. Listen carefully: "Whatever you accept as the final authority is your God" So you accept science and observation as the final authority in your lives. Science determines your world view. Thereby science influences your action, your decisions, and your speech.

Christians also accept science, but we do NOT accept it as final authority. We recognize that science is limited and incomplete and often wrong. We recognize that science cannot give us all the answers. Especially answers about our origins. So we accept the God of the Bible as the final authority, so He is our God.

Taking my example further, there are many many people on the earth who dont consider cosmology or abiogenesis at all. They neither have Judeo-Christian God, NOR science for their final authority. Maybe they have their girlfriend for their final authority, maybe their school peers, maybe their jobs, sports, etc etc

Christians have all those things also, but we consider them as idols if they come before the final authority of the Bible, because Christians see the Word Of God itself(contained within the Bible) to be God. In other words we consider the Word of God as God Himself. THere is no seperation between what God said and who God is. So an atheist might take science to be his "word of god".

So to make a long story short you trust Newton, Einstein and Darwin as the final authority. We Christians also trust those guys, but not as the final authority.

But we dont condemn you for your beliefs, sometimes I get a little angry if things dont go my way, just like everyone else, but I dont hold any grudges and at the end of the day I think every ones opinion is important.

But yes I do feel bad if you cannot see what I consider the limitless wonders of God, and I feel that you are trapped to a meaningless worldview which I am powerless to help you overcome.

Science is your god, and your god cares nothing for you.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause 101 - 06/02/06 06:32

Quote:

Assuming it has always been around is proof of limited thinking and narrow mindedness if you ask me.




Yes! Thank you! You've just inadvertently said exactly what I've been trying to say all along. [Adding time to a God who created time] is proof of limited thinking and narrow mindedness if you ask me. I just wouldn't have been so harsh about it.

Quote:

Time doesn't require a creation,




Ok. So nothing exists for all eternity because there is no time. Then somewhere in this eternity, time comes into existence. Let's examine the logic of this problem.

Time doesn't exist, neither does matter, or space. All of these things were created sometime just slightly before the big bang. But if time doesn't exist then automatically that means nothing exists for eternity (matter and space have to be created at the same time as time). There's no two ways around this. Nothing exists eternally (that's a long time), but then within the eternal nothingness (which includes no time) time comes into existence. How can time not exist for eternity, and still exist as we comprehend it? By the very nature of time not existing at any given point before time, it cannot exist. In fact, its logically impossible to even entertain the idea.

Time is eternal? Then that sucks because thermodynamics would dictate that the universe became useless to life an eternity ago. Yet here we are. Not to mention that eternal time still explains nothing.

You can't use the excuse that the universe goes through phases. Heat (the thermodynamic kind) came into being an eternity ago along with time (in other words it was eternal). But that means that no matter how far back in time you go, thermodynamics has caused the universe to run out of 'juice'. We can never be in any stage other than lifelessness in this universe if time is eternal. We missed the 'living' stage of the universe infinity ago. In fact, if we travelled back a trillion years and then stopped for a second, and travelled back a trillion years over and over again, even if we were immortal and could do this as long as we wanted to...we could never go back in time far enough to reach a point in which the universe was inhabitable because there's still an infinite amount of time before that for heat to become 'evenly distributed', and thus life cannot exist.

In fact, this just goes to show that you can't apply infinity to the physical universe without running into far too many problems that can't be solved. Infinity only exists in math.

Time was created.

Quote:

space doesn't need a creation either, can there be something like anti-space or no-space?




No, nor would that have anything to do with space being created. However, where does space come from. Does it just like to pop up out of nothing? At what point does no space at all (that means no room for anything, nothing blocking it, nothing at all) at what point does no space become space? How does this happen?

Quote:

As for matter, if there's time and space and things can spontaniously come into existence simply because they can (no cause or no visible or provable cause), then I still don't see a reason for any God to be involved in the process.




Well, then given the hypothetical and inevitable nothingness before there was matter we know scientifically that matter cannot come into existence. In our physical universe, nothing begets nothing. Its only the truth within the confines of our universe.

Quote:

It's not obvious at all unlike you've stated. How did God create matter? Did he clap his hands and voíla, there you go the universe was born? A theory involving a God has the same problem, creating matter from nothing, assuming there was nothing before there was something.




Again, you're ignoring the obvious conclusion that God is in no way shape or form, part of this universe. The contradiction lies in your camp only. If I'm inside the watch, I don't say the watchmaker didn't make it, just because anything outside the watch would have to be made out of watch parts. In fact, the creator outside the watch is very different from the watch. He has nothing to do with it, except that he created it.

We don't specifically know God's nature, because he doesn't have a nature in a sense. We do know the nature of the universe, and we do know that it inevitably has a creator. I'm going to keep on finding ways to phrase this until you can finally understand which peice of the puzzle you're missing here. Because there's something right in front of your eyes that you're JUST missing. But we'll get there together. Love is patient, after all.

I don't think its a coincidence that whenever you try to 'patronize' me and come up with a model of God, it always includes something physical (you contradict yourself). As if it bears any relevance to God. You literally cannot even give God the correct attributes. How could God have existed forever? That's putting time on Him, which is irrelevant. The answer is he hasn't existed forever, because there is no time from his perspective. Its illogical to ask the question in the first place.

How is he living in some dark room? Now you're putting space on God. Which he would obviously not be confined to. Logically, the creator of space, would not be living in space to begin with. It would be absolutely impossible. So why can't you consider this? How can he create something that he would have to live in, in the first place?

You (maybe not you specifically, but I mean in general atheists) give Him human characteristics, like a beard, and say that He's just fuming like some child with a temper tantrum. I don't think these irrational, illogical views are a coincidence. They obviously would have nothing to do with God, but people can't help but associate them with God because they're so stuck thinking only in terms of the universe. Believe me, the universe is great. I think a better understanding of the universe was part of God's plan for us. But when you become trapped in that understanding, and start thinking that there can be nothing else except this universe (despite obvious scientific contradictions), I think you've left the realm of reason. Surely, whether or not you believe in God, you should be able to consider what God would be like if he exists. Why then does it seem impossible for any of you to do that? That isn't meant to be a leading question. I believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that He does exist. Yet I'm able to imagine what it would be like if he didn't. I have to do it every time I talk to you guys or we would never be able to have a debate.

Anyway, this is a long post, and I'm tired and need sleep. Good night.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/02/06 08:36

Quote:

If its spontaneous, then why can we slap absolutes like half-life onto radioactive atoms? Surely, if it just happened randomly then the value wouldn't always be constant.



Half-life is a statistical value derived from the probability of an atomic decay. The probability is a defined value, but an individual decay happens random and causeless. See:

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

Quote:

I take it, from reading your links, that you say matter can be spontaneously created by black holes with virtual particles?



No, spontaneous matter creation has nothing to do with "black holes". It happens even without the presence of matter and fields and is called "vacuum energy" or "vacuum polarization". The creation of virtual particles at the event horizon of black holes however is caused by the gravity gradient and produces the Hawking Radiation.

Quote:

Here's the problem I've noticed that materialists have. By your very nature, you're so convinced that all there is, is the universe, that you can't even imagine anything beyond it.



Here's the problem that I see creationists have: All your posts in these threads are full of phrases like "is unimaginable", "can never happen", "is impossible" etc - targeted at scientific theories of nature. I think I pointed out that many of your "unimaginable" is not only imaginable, but even observed - like spontaneous matter creation.

A limit of imagination creates gods, demons or supernatural forces for filling the gaps.

However even then you should not let your thinking stop there. If I believed that a god created the universe, earth, animals etc, I'd ask a lot of questions about why and how he existed at all and why and how he tampered with nature. I would not be satisfied with phrases like "God has no cause" and "his reasons are unfathomable".

By the way, what's your permanent problem with materialism? I'm not a materialist. If you don't know the difference between materialism and atheism, just look it up in Wikipedia.

Quote:

[Adding time to a God who created time] is proof of limited thinking and narrow mindedness if you ask me. I just wouldn't have been so harsh about it.



All our minds are limited and narrow in a way. Some less, some more. One of the reasons for these threads is attempting to widen creationist's minds a little.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: cause - 06/02/06 12:56

Quote:

I'd ask a lot of questions about why and how he existed at all and why and how he tampered with nature. I would not be satisfied with phrases like "God has no cause" and "his reasons are unfathomable".


These questions have been answered by not only Christians on this forum(I just did yesterday) but also from theologians for hundreds and thousands of years. As per usual, you just ignored it.

Quote:

Here's the problem that I see creationists have: All your posts in these threads are full of phrases like "is unimaginable", "can never happen", "is impossible" etc - targeted at scientific theories of nature. I think I pointed out that many of your "unimaginable" is not only imaginable, but even observed - like spontaneous matter creation.

A limit of imagination creates gods, demons or supernatural forces for filling the gaps.


Nope, as I have said before numerous times, we dont have "gaps" in our knowledge, we have no "gaps" to fill.

Science, your god, has gaps.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: cause - 06/02/06 14:07

Quote:

These questions have been answered by not only Christians on this forum(I just did yesterday) but also from theologians for hundreds and thousands of years. As per usual, you just ignored it.




If an answer to one of those questions doesn't make sense, then what? You just seem to accept it anyway, because it's part of what you believe.

Take for example the reason you've stated why God would want to create us. Like I said before, how could we know such a motivation of a God in the first place, isn't that just plain speculation? And most importantly where's the evidence of his existence? We or the universe doesn't make sense as an answer to this question.

That's like saying, you can't see, notice or feel him or any of his actions, but he is is there alright. Doesn't make sense to me.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/02/06 23:21

Quote:

One of the reasons for these threads is attempting to widen creationist's minds a little.




Because the inability to think of anything except what's right before my eyes is quite limiting to me.

Quote:

If an answer to one of those questions doesn't make sense, then what? You just seem to accept it anyway, because it's part of what you believe.




Because it does make sense. I have yet to run into a contradiction of God that has baffled me.

Quote:

Like I said before, how could we know such a motivation of a God in the first place, isn't that just plain speculation?




Ok, then, maybe we're wrong. That doesn't prove He doesn't exist. Or maybe, like gravity, we can scratch the surface of something without completely understanding it. Regardless of current theories on gravity, just from a layman's point of view, I know that I am attracted down to the ground. I may not know what gravity is, but I understand a certain aspect of it.

I may not understand God, but based on the fact that He created us, and that He lived directly with us (obviously manifesting himself in some way...though its unclear how) might suggest that he wanted us to live in fellowship with him. It doesn't mean that I understand God's entirety, but I do understand his purpose for his creation. Man, that almost gave my brain a cramp.

Quote:

That's like saying, you can't see, notice or feel him or any of his actions, but he is is there alright.




Would it really prove His existence to you if you did? How do you know you're not just crazy. There's literally no proof God can give you that you can't justify out of your mind. But I can guarantee you this, if you honestly repent and ask him to reveal himself...you will gain a personal relationship with him. Things will change. He won't reveal himself to your flesh, that would be pointless. He'll reveal himself where its important, your spirit. But anyway. That's just my two sense on that, I'm sure you don't believe in spirit and all of that nonsense.

Its obvious that debating God's existence is pointless. You've put blinders on your eyes, and they aren't coming off.

So let's just critique what you believe for a moment. I'll play the devil's advocate and assume that God doesn't exist for the time being. But now I have some rather strange points to bring up, because we have some problems here.

I'll seperate each one of my curious inquiries into numbers so that we can talk together on specific points. Now, be open minded about this. I'm not trying to lead your thoughts anywhere, for now. I'm just assuming that God doesn't exist and I want you to answer some of my questions that I'm curious about.

1). Knowing God had nothing to do with it, can we all agree that time had a beginning? That there was a point in which no time existed?

2). Again, knowing that there was no 'supernatural' force behind it all, can we all agree that space had a beginning? Again, that there was a point in which no space existed?


3). Concerning 1 and 2, if there was no space, and there was no time, then can we furthermore agree that before the universe existed, there was a general nothingness? A nothingness that is timeless (because time doesn't exist), spaceless (nowhere for matter or time to exist), and matterless (because where or when are you going to put stuff?).

4). Taking this to its logical conclusion, can we then agree that space, time, and matter had to generally come into existence at about the same time, or in conjunction with one another?

I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: cause - 06/03/06 06:10

i would say "no" to 1 and 2.
thinking of time as a line doesnt sound good to me.

the whole creation as well has a problem that if god can exist since ever why not something else as well. maybe the universe is eternal.
or the time or better said the speed of time is not constant but getting faster as we speak.
Maybe the density of the initial mass made the time speed eternal near to 0.
imagine the whole universe stuffed into one small marble sized ball. its mass could be able to stop time or slow it down.

if now the universe expands a consequence would be a speed up of the time. well, till the break even point when the time and mass balance is shaken and it starts to collapse again into one small marble just to expand again...forever.

and what if time can be so slow that it "creates" a balance of mass. starting with nothing and a "frozen" time the rules of physic made the time create a outbalancing mass.

i also wonder why people think that the universe needs to be created when everything "none man made" is a conclusions of reactions, physical rules and constelations.
nothing i know of or can see had to be "made" (biblical creationism).

everything is a part of a circle/cycle but on the other hand we demand someone started it? why?

its kind of weired that it is obvious that anything elementar is circle shaped. from the quarks to the stars this form seams to be the basic masterplan.
and one thing all circles all over the world have in common: they neither have a start nor an end point

cheers
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/03/06 09:23

Unlike religion, science is not based on a fixed mind set that "we all agree" on. Science has several hypotheses, but no finished theory that would answer those questions. Most hypotheses, like the Gabriele Veneziano model, answer all 4 questions with "no". According to some models, baryonic universes like ours are permanently created by phase transitions within an eternal 10-dimensional space they are embedded in. All those universes have slightly different laws of nature, resulting in a 100% probability for life conditions in many of them.

While science is seriously exploring the beginning of the universe, and the possibility of other universes, there are no ready answers at the moment. String theory can not yet predict the topologies of universes formed this way. The required mathematical tools that aren't developed yet.

A foundation dedicated to those questions: http://www.fqxi.org/

In the way the are asked, the obvious answer to the questions is "no" because we can not agree on something that we do not even know. Intuitively, I would also say "no" to the underlying assumptions. I see no reason to make such limiting assumptions about our world as long as there's no evidence for them.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: cause - 06/03/06 18:06

Bah, whatever. You guys are hopeless. Well, we don't really have anything to say about a self-creating universe, and since we don't know, we don't have to know. We just assume that it had nothing to do with God.

I thought my curiosities were pretty basic, anyone could grasp their concepts, but the only response I get is, "Science has a lot of guesses."

Why can't you have an open mind like that when it comes to God. Instead you keep repeating the same logical fallacies about him being part of time, or part of space, etc.

If you're too afraid to discuss the origin, in an elementary fashion, then suit yourself. I'm done with the God vs. Nothing debate.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/03/06 18:07

That was me, by the by. I just want to say that what I've just seen is cop-out stonewalling at its best.
Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: cause - 06/03/06 18:38

you are misinterpreting what is said.
science is not fighting god or any concept per se. the idea is to find sollutions/evidence and proof for problems and concepts.

while the string theory for example fits common laws of astrophysic (or at least as much as we yet understand about it) the creationism thru god does not. at least not the way hardcore creationism is thought.

is the existence of god possible (biblical description of god in this case)? yes
does any common law or rule support the existence of god? no

so the bottom line is: if there is not one single mathematical, physical or in any way scientific observation/fact/rule or law that god has created time and space from the scientific point of view he simply has not.


histroy is full of examples that support that method. starting from vulcanos to atoms and bacterias.
either is the errutpion of a vulcano "created" by a higher force or a result of physics.

problem with the universe is that it is far more complicated then a simple vulcano or the sunset.

and to connect science with guessing is not valid at all. and if complaining about none open minded people you should keep that in mind as well.

the idea that "someone" created the universe is against anything we have observered till present day.
if nothing else gets created then why the universe in the first place.
wouldnt logic demand that it fits into this sheme as well?

if i claim that i have created the universe and all being because i am allmighty, would this be justification or proof enough for you as well?
or wouldnt you keep sceptical untill you have enough evidence to agree or disagree.

cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/04/06 02:56

Actually, the more I think about it and read other atheist-theist exchanges, I've decided I was on the right path. Its apparent, from atheist arguments on this board, and elsewhere that atheism isn't a positive position, but the only evidence an atheist can come up for his beliefs is that theist beliefs aren't consistent.

In other words atheism only exists in a theist vaccuum if you will. You don't need to have all the answers, as long as you think I don't have all the answers. This is why everytime I ask, "how can nothing create something" your only response isn't to work out this unsolvable paradox, but to say, "How can God do it?" That's not even an argument. However, its justification for you, because you believe that as long as my position doesn't make sense to you, yours doesn't have to make sense at all because its just automatically right.

So, then, I want to get back to my original line of discussion.

Before the universe existed, would there not be a general nothingness? Assuming God does not exist, wherein absolutely nothing (that means even less than a vacuum, because a vacuum requires a universe to exist) did time, space, and matter decide to spring into existence? As a curious objective observer to both arguments (...) I just want to know how you guys would answer this question.

Obviously time and space have a beginning. What started this process? How is it even possible? I'm just curious.

I don't even see an argument for matter appearing for no reason. There are two main problems with this point. No where in your link did it mention that matter can be created out of absolutely nothing. Perhaps you can steer me in the correct direction cause I might just be missing it.

The second problem with this argument is that it requires that the universe already be in existence. I does nothing in the way of getting rid of every cause for matter, because the universe is an indirect cause for the possibility of matter being created out of nowhere. In other words, if the universe doesn't exist, matter will never create itself out of nowhere.

Actually there's a third problem. This is a negative position. I can't prove that nothing causes matter to come into existence in certain cases. I can only prove that we don't know of a cause. The same thing happened with vestigial organs. We couldn't prove that they had no purpose, we could only prove that we didn't know the purpose. Then some time later we found out. So this is certainly not proof that there are things in the universe that lack a cause.


Back on another subject: If decay were truly random as you say, we would not be able to slap an absolute value like half-life on it. If half-life isn't a constant, then we can't be sure of the age of the earth. So out of curiosity, how do we know the radioactive decay won't randomly happen all at once and bring the half-life down to almost nothing?

And again, you can't prove it happens for no reason, you can only prove you don't know the cause. And in fact, I've read many other websites that claim there is a reason it happens. So I would like to know who is right, and why.

Either way, it has no bearing on my argument. You say random decay proves that nothing I say is right. But that's a non sequitor. (You can deny this is what you meant, but your statement "Things you've said were impossible are possible." doesn't leave much to the imagination). My question wasn't how does something happen for no reason once the universe is there for it happen for no reason, its how does the universe spring out of no where. This goes beyond the question of things happening for no reason, but asks where something springs from a void of anything, including cause and reason. For you its good enough to 'prove' that I was wrong on one thing, because then you don't have to address the paradox of nothing creating something.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/04/06 11:08

@Irish: If I understand right, your basic problem with science goes along this line:

"Science doesn't know the cause for phenomenon X. My religion knows the cause for X: it's a god. My religion obviously gives an answer where science has none. Thus I don't understand why scientists are so narrow minded that they are not content with god as the cause for X and are still looking for another cause."

Science began at the state of knowing nothing. The cause for everything was "a god". If we had left it at that, we'd still live on trees. The beginning of science was the very thing you're complaining about: Not accepting "a god" for an answer anymore, and looking further.

With the development of science, we've found more and more theories that explained natural phenomena without the need for "a god" or a supernatural force. Still, there's a lot in nature - like the trigger for the Big Bang, or the beginning of time (if it had a beginning) - that science has not yet theories for. There are only the hypotheses that I mentioned above. The spontaenous Vacuum Polarization can certainly not have caused the Big Bang - in that you're right. Currently, there are lots of hypotheses in what could have caused our universe or many other universes. Here's one of them:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=...r=1&catID=2

You see that even those speculations are a lot more sophisticated than the trivial "a god caused it". You and your fellow sectarians seem to feel a desparate need for attacking any scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe or the evolution in order to defend your god's last resorts. But this fight is doomed to fail - in fact it has already failed. And it's unnecessary anyway. You've given the answer yourself: Your god is out of the universe and out of time and space. He has no resorts in nature anymore.

If you accept that our world is not governed by supernatural forces, you can still believe in your god, outside the universe, an abstract ethics or creative principle or whatever you want. And you've then made the step from a superstitious religion to a modern religion.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/04/06 18:59

Quote:

"Science doesn't know the cause for phenomenon X. My religion knows the cause for X: it's a god. My religion obviously gives an answer where science has none. Thus I don't understand why scientists are so narrow minded that they are not content with god as the cause for X and are still looking for another cause."




No, my problem is that they've turned science into absolute idiocy.

Science used to deal with only the observed, and if something couldn't be directly observed, its effects at least had to be directly observable. If science went beyond that, at least it would be admitted, and they wouldn't shove conjecture down our throats as fact.

Radiation and red shift does not automatically mean the big bang is fact. The big bang is just an idea based off of these two observations. Nowhere in science does the big bang automatically replace God. If I assume that God created the universe generally the way we see it now, then I could make the exact same observations, and come to the wrong conclusion that it started with a big bang. Don't get me wrong, I don't think its wrong to hypothesize an alternative, but just because its been hypothesized doesn't mean it should then automatically turn into fact.

Furthermore, there are far too many problems with the big bang theory, despite that the problems are never brought up, and the big bang is still discussed as fact.

The big bang requires cosmic evolution in order to acheive the state that its at right now. Yet this is in an even more dire state than biological evolution because we never even see cosmic reproduction. So should I just accept that it happens on faith? I don't get what the difference between your faith and my faith is. Except that yours doesn't offend you with a god.

Furthermore, scientists are finally willing to admit that there was something before the big bang. In other words, they've finally caved to the objections that theists have made for years. The Big Bang cannot occur out of nowhere. So this more primordial state of the universe, where did that come from? Furthermore, if this pre-universe is an assumption based on an assumption, why don't you or other scientists admit that?

You haven't given certain alternatives to God. You've simply given possible alternatives to God. Why should I abandon God when you don't even know for sure what happened. And the fact is the only reason you're sure it happened that way, is because you know God didn't do it. You can't allow for God anywhere in the picture.

Quote:

Science began at the state of knowing nothing. The cause for everything was "a god". If we had left it at that, we'd still live on trees. The beginning of science was the very thing you're complaining about: Not accepting "a god" for an answer anymore, and looking further.




That's the problem of science then, because even early followers of God (like way way back in the day...shortly after we believe the earth was created) knew better.



From what I can see, your argument sounds like this. "Some idiots a long time ago thought that there was a giant hand in the sky that moved the sun, but now we know better. Since then, we've made a lot of really great, unverifiable guesses to a lot of other things. So eventually we can make some educated guesses based on other guesses to eventually lead us to a possible cause that excludes God. In which case we'll know for sure it happened that way."

Quote:

Your god is out of the universe and out of time and space. He has no resorts in nature anymore.





His existence is, but how does that mean He can't make Himself a part of the universe.


Basically atheists have the monopoly on what unverifiable, and wildly imaginative (though mathematically correct) guesses can be made about the universe. But that doesn't mean they're 100% correct. I think what offends people like you so much is that unlike the other namby pamby religions who tickle scientific egos by caving in, we point out that the fact of the matter is you don't know for sure. And you never will. There are some answers science cannot definitively know. And it never will know. You can call guesses factual all you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Furthermore, if all scientists were theists, we would probably admit that the more we look at the universe, the more it looks like there's a creator.


The problem isn't that science has replaced God for all the answers, its that it doesn't have all the answers but we're constantly told it does. Scientists are trying to push science beyond its limits, because it appears the ultimate goal isn't discovery (if it was then they wouldn't care about something they'll never know for sure anyway), but to replace God with nature.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: cause - 06/05/06 00:22

Quote:

Furthermore, if all scientists were theists, we would probably admit that the more we look at the universe, the more it looks like there's a creator.




Yes, this would fit your view nicely I guess, but if it's so obvious and possible to derive from the scientific research that a creator would be likely, then why don't the scientist believe in God? Unlike you think, science isn't about finding proof to disprove your belief.

Infact if scientists would find proof that makes the existance of a God likely, then I probably would believe it. (Don't worry, the evidence should be very solid off course. )

No offense, but I think your argument about 'if all scientists were theists' is in plain error. Yes, they start with a different point of view, however the lack of evidence in favor of a God as they would discover would make it hard for them to hold on to that belief. Infact the lack of evidence for any of the biblical socalled historical events will make them doubt the bible and probably even simply declare it as definately not historical, although filosophical interesting, since archaeological evidence proves it's not historical.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/05/06 01:01

Quote:

Yes, this would fit your view nicely I guess, but if it's so obvious and possible to derive from the scientific research that a creator would be likely, then why don't the scientist believe in God? Unlike you think, science isn't about finding proof to disprove your belief.




Science largely ignores God as a cause. That's great, until you start guessing how the universe and life came into existence. Its actually quite entertaining to watch scientists try and replace God for the origin of life, because they obviously must understand nothing about thermodynamics. Its also funny to watch them try and replace God for the origin of the universe. However, it starts becoming rather detrimental when their unverifiable guesses are paraded around as truth. Aren't religionists supposed to be idiots for believing something that can't be proved? The big bang effects our natural universe in no way, and we can't recreate it, or any of its effects on our universe in the lab. But it must be true, because red shift is possibly caused by space expansion. And there is no reason to think that this could have to do with something other than the big bang.

I'm not saying its wrong to believe the big bang is right, I'm just saying there isn't conclusive evidence that it is right, and in fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, why should I take their word on something that supposedly happened billions of years ago, when they won't even admit that life can't start on its own (which supposedly happened only a fraction of the time ago). I also find it hard to believe any age they tack on anything. The age of the earth has doubled on average every twenty years. Yet every time they come up with a new age, we're told it IS the age, not that its the assumed age. Because if they admit that they're making assumptions, then people won't fall for it. Furthermore, if they were wrong for each and every other age that they've given for the earth, why are they suddenly right now? Why should I believe them? The self-correcting nature of science argument doesn't work, because we were told these ages were fact. There was no guessing involved. That's my point.

Furthermore, with the current model of the big bang, they assume that stars came into existence at roughly the same time as the universe. Even according to them, this isn't possible. But I'm just supposed to take it on faith that they're right about everything? As soon as science left the realm of the directly, or even indirectly observable, its become a joke. I for one don't find the joke very funny, however.

Quote:

Yes, they start with a different point of view, however the lack of evidence in favor of a God as they would discover would make it hard for them to hold on to that belief.




According to this logic, I could say that the lack of evidence in favor of naturalism is what makes it hard for atheist scientists to stay atheists. Does that make sense? I think you'll agree that it doesn't, but that's because you missed my point. My point was that, you're sitting here taking these imaginative stories at face value, when these stories not only wouldn't exist if scientists were theists, but they would be radically different. In which case, it would be very difficult to believe that there is no God. In fact, the evidence for God is right there, but you never hear about it. I'm not about to scream conspiracy, but scientists are so dead set on showing how the universe could exist without God (and life), that they won't admit that there is no other alternative. We've made absolutely NO headway into discovering how life could have started without a designer. In fact, we've done the opposite, and we've figured out that its impossible for it to start without some creative power. Yet we're told as a fact that it didn't. Does this not bother you in any way? Doesn't it bother you that even the most basic understanding of thermodynamics shows why life cannot start on its own? If it takes a creator to make life, then maybe all of our assumptions about a lack of creator anywhere else are wrong. But that's exactly the problem. That will never be admitted to.

Quote:

since archaeological evidence proves it's not historical.




What evidence was this again?

Quote:

Infact if scientists would find proof that makes the existance of a God likely, then I probably would believe it. (Don't worry, the evidence should be very solid off course. )




Good. I want to discuss this further, because I've seen this come up in other atheist-theist discussions. What could scientists find in this universe that would convince you God exists? I don't think there's a single thing that could happen in this universe that you couldn't rationalize.

But I don't want to assume you're lying. Tell me what could happen within the natural realm (in other words something that isn't physically impossible like a square-circle) that would convince you. In other words, something we can comprehend.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/05/06 14:22

@Irish: Generally I have the impression that while at the beginning of this thread you attempted to give "scientific arguments" for your creationist faith, you're now attacking science in general. Or am I wrong here?

Quote:

ts actually quite entertaining to watch scientists try and replace God for the origin of life, because they obviously must understand nothing about thermodynamics.



I've heard of many gods, but never of a thermodynamics god. Would you mind to elaborate?

Quote:

I'm not saying its wrong to believe the big bang is right, I'm just saying there isn't conclusive evidence that it is right, and in fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.



Such as?

Quote:

Furthermore, with the current model of the big bang, they assume that stars came into existence at roughly the same time as the universe. Even according to them, this isn't possible.



Indeed. Thus there's obviously something wrong with your information about the "current Big Bang model", wouldn't you agree?

I won't go into this now because it only makes sense when you at least know a little tiny bit about the Big Bang. There are many web sites where you can learn about the Big Bang and when stars came into existence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

If you have questions or don't understand something, just ask here.

Quote:

My point was that, you're sitting here taking these imaginative stories at face value, when these stories not only wouldn't exist if scientists were theists, but they would be radically different.



Many scientists are theists. Your problem is obviously not that they are not theists, but that they are not superstitious.

You're permanently talking about God, but what you really seem to mean is not God, but the supernatural events or miracles into which your sect believes.

Stop hijacking God for your purposes. Or else I'll start pointing out why God is an evolutionist .
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: cause - 06/05/06 16:24

Quote:

Quote:

since archaeological evidence proves it's not historical.




What evidence was this again?




Quote:

Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology, William G. Dever writes:

Until about a generation ago Biblical achaeologists spoke confidently about William Foxwell Albright's "archaeological revolution". It would assuredly enhance our understanding and appreciation of the Bible and its timeless message-which was thought to be absolutely essential to our cherished Western culture condition. The Bible and the "Christian West," as formerly conceived, are fighting for their lives. Not only has modern archaeology not helped to confirm the earlier tradition, it appears to some to be part of the process to undermind it. This is a not-so-well kept secret among professional archaeologists.
The failure of the "archaeological revolution" means tryng to occupy the beleagured middle ground, neither extreme skeptics or naive credulists. The clock cannot be turned back to the time when archaeology allegedly "proved the Bible." Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the "larger than life" portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence. There was no military conquest of Canaan, and many, if not most, of the Isrealites throughout the Monarchy were polytheists. Monotheism may have been an ideal of Bible writers. Archaeology cannot not decide what the supposed events described in the Bible mean. That decision is left up to each individual. Archaeology cannot decide this question; it can only sharpen our focus.[4](Dever, 2006)




You see, some tend to believe biblical archaeology proves certain historical aspects of the Bible, but all that it has been able to do is make certain controversial claims.

Finding for example a city mentioned in the bible is one thing, however more than once it has turned out to be very different than described in the bible. Both in size, local importance and development. Most archaeology rather disproves the bible as being historical, but that's something most biblical archaeologists don't like to admit,

Cheers
Posted By: Dan Silverman

Re: cause - 06/05/06 17:30

PHeMoX,

Both you and the author of that article (at least from the quote you provide) show your ignorance of the Bible in this regard. There are vast assumptions being made that are simply not correct. I will try to briefly explain.

Quote:

many, if not most, of the Isrealites throughout the Monarchy were polytheists.




This one statement shows that the author of these words does not know the Bible at all. The Bible itself shows the Israelites were polytheists. This was one of the main problems the prophets and other biblical writers were dealing with within Israel. God gave them a law to have no other gods before him. Despite this, the Israelites, from the very beginning, continued to worship a variety of gods including the Canannite gods of Molech and Baal (which were really the same god under different name). The Bible nowhere declares that the Israelites, as a nation, were monotheistic ... quite the opposite. As a result, archaeologically I would expect to find an abundance of evidence that demonstrates the polytheism of ancient Israel. In fact, this is what we find.

Quote:

There was no military conquest of Canaan




Upon what archaeological evidence do they base this? Both the ancient city of Jericho and the ancient city of AI have been found. Both are in a state of destruction and both date from the approx. time frame of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. The conquest was never truly completed and, as a result, many (if not most) of the Canaanites, Philistines and other peoples remained in the land of Israel throughout the entire monarchy period. As a result, there was always a presence of these peoples. This is what we would expect to find archaeologically from a reading of the Bible and this is what is found in fact.

Oh! And I am not just speaking these things from the top of my head. For the last 4.5 years I had lived in Israel and visited many of these sites, seen them with my own eyes, touched them with my own hands and, on occassion, even spoken with experts in the field concerning these places.

Quote:

Finding for example a city mentioned in the bible is one thing, however more than once it has turned out to be very different than described in the bible. Both in size, local importance and development.




Can you give an example of this? Normally the Bible does not mention the size of a city (i.e. so many cubits or so many days journey to cross, etc). For example, it states simply that Jericho was a wall city. Not much more information is given. There are a few exceptions (such as Ninevah), but they are very rare.

In each case where the Bible mentions the importance of a place it was, indeed, important during that time. I cannot think of one instance where this would not be the case. For example, there is no denying that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel and then, after the nation split, of the southern kingdom of Judah. There is no denying that Babylon was the capital of the Babylonian empire. The importance given to cities in the Bible is fact, not because the Bible says so, but because they were indeed places of significance.

Rarely does the Bible even speak of the development of a city or even a people in any way. Mainly very simple and matter-of-fact statements are made such as a people group having "chariots of iron" and the like.

What I want to point out here is that you have made a claim and yet it seems that you have nothing to back up your statement. You claim the Bible makes statements about cities, their sizes, their importance and their development and then indicate the inaccuracy of the Bible in these areas. And, yet, the Bible rarely, if ever, makes any claims along these lines. In this case, it would seem, that the burdon of proof is upon you to show us these contradictions.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/05/06 17:42

Quote:

Finding for example a city mentioned in the bible is one thing, however more than once it has turned out to be very different than described in the bible. Both in size, local importance and development.




You would think things change, considering we're looking at ruins, whereas the writer was probably talking about a city in its existence, we're looking at something that has had time to change, etc. Cities weren't around only for the instance they were written about in the bible.

Quote:

Most archaeology rather disproves the bible as being historical, but that's something most biblical archaeologists don't like to admit




I can't argue this, I simply don't have any knowledge whatsoever of archaeology. I will assume that biblical archaeologists would have an equally convincing argument. I don't know. I'll have to look it up I suppose.

Quote:

Generally I have the impression that while at the beginning of this thread you attempted to give "scientific arguments" for your creationist faith, you're now attacking science in general. Or am I wrong here?




No I'm not. I just don't think that the evidence is as conclusive as you'd like me to believe. In fact, its pretty easy to see. Random news clippings about them being wrong about the distance of objects by 100s of millions of lightyears, etc. The age of the earth doubling every 20 years, the age of the universe growing and shrinking, and yet being absolutely certain about the age each and every time.

Quote:

Such as?




I'll let you argue with these three guys, because there's no point in me being unable to state nearly as well what these guys say. I admit I haven't read all of it, but from what I've seen they aren't convinced whatsoever, and even compare big bang believers to young earth creationists.

Quote:

Indeed. Thus there's obviously something wrong with your information about the "current Big Bang model", wouldn't you agree?




Well, then scientists are misleading the press. It wasn't directly stated that stars were in existence at about the same time as the universe, but the oldest known celestial body is about as old as the universe, which leaves no room for stellar evolution.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/05/06 17:51

I will admit that I can't say much about the big bang. I'm probably not going to click that link anytime soon to learn, just yet.

My main problem with the big bang, is that if scientists can be so wrong about what we can observe day in and day out (biology/evolution) how are they possibly going to understand the entire universe from out of our little corner? I'm sure there are a lot of interesting reasons to believe the big bang.

I just think there are also a lot of different ways to read the universe. The most simple one being red shift.

Many skeptics of the big bang say that red shift has more to do with distance. Of course, then this begs the question of why things can be blue shifted. But then I don't wholly agree with how they decide the amount of red shift in the first place. I don't know. Frankly, cosmology changes so often that its hard to even criticise.

edit: Also God isn't the God of thermodynamics, he's the God who created thermodynamics. Which, coincidentally, predicts that life will never start on its own. If you want a lesson in thermodynamics, just ask.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: cause - 06/06/06 00:10

Quote:

". . . the archaeological evidence in Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent. Nineteenth and early twentieth century

excavations around the Temple Mount in Jerusalem failed to identify even a trace of Solomon's fabled Temple or palace complex." ["The Bible Unearthed",

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Slberman; Touchstone pub., New York, 2002]




I can quote many many many of these kind of examples ...

Quote:

The reality is, there was no enslavement or Exodus AS the Bible claims, it MAY have happened on a much smaller scale, but the Biblical accounts of

these events are either exaggerated or fantasy.




Quote:

I (personally) was singularly underwhelmed by the pictures of the alleged "cities" presented in Gray's website.

They look suspiciously similar to the formations, claimed by some to be cities, which are found on Mars and the moon.

In addition to the fact that it takes a great deal of imagination (and overlay drawings) to see anything other than natural geologic processes in the formations, there is a distinct lack of buried finds (both cemeteries and occupational debris) that would, presumably, not have been "turned to ash".

You should be aware that any discoveries connected with Ron Wyatt are suspect in the extreme.

Even the Christian "Answers In Genesis" refuses to be affiliated with him, as the following excerpt from one of their sites (linked below) shows:

[AIG] "(Ron) Wyatt claimed to have found just about every conceivable artifact of importance to the Bible. The real Red Sea crossing site, with chariot

wheels; the Ark of the Covenant underneath the actual site of the Crucifixion, replete with the dried blood of Christ (complete with a misunderstanding by

this fraudster of the nature of human genetics) . . . and the chromosomes, it was alleged, were seen to be still dividing! Not surprisingly, the lab that was

said to have confirmed all this is mysteriously unavailable for comment. O, yes, and the real Sodom and Gomorrah, the site of Korah's earthquake, Noah's

grave, Noah's wife's grave (with millions in treasure which some rascal promptly stole) even the fence from Noah's farm, no less. To cap it off, he claimed to have the actual tablets of the Law (bound with golden links, no less) in his garage, as it were. And this is only the beginning of such amazing claims; nearly

100 in all! Not surprisingly, even after his death, none of these treasures has ever been produced."

"He (Ron Wyatt) said that he prayed at the (Noah's) Ark site once, and God caused the ground to tear apart via an earthquake so that he, Wyatt, could see

the petrified ship's timbers. Then it closed again. . . . If one discovers, as we did, . . . that there is a trail of repeated falsehood after falsehood,

public lie upon public lie, the hypothesis (that Ron Wyatt is) a godly, spiritual, latter-day prophet [or credible archaeologist {my insertion}] is easily discredited"





Remember, the above quotation is not from some "biblical minimalist" but from the Christian "Answers In Genesis" organization.

About Saul, David and Solomon;

Quote:

What is it in the archaeological record that makes you think that these three rulers were real people? DO you not find it suspect that the only piece

of 'evidence' that we have for any of these three rulers is the very ambiguous Tel Dan Stele. Wouldn't you expect to find, if the biblical tales are true

regarding these three people, more than this one vague reference?

The Tel Dan Stele is more likely to be a reference to a place or a temple and is not a clear cut reference to King David.




And that's all it is, a reference. And it's not nearly as clear as you hope.

About the Moabite Stele;

Quote:

To my understanding, this is not actually correct. It is line 31 in which Lemaire claims to have discovered the "house of David" inscription. Line 12 reads (from right to left):

s?aw hdwd lara ta m?m b?aw bamlw ?mkl tyr rqh

Which is translated as:

. . . hqr (the town) tyr (belonged) l'kmc (to Kemosh) v'l'mab(and to Moab). vacb(and I brought) mcm (thence) at (direct object indicator) aral (either altar, or, Aral, i.e. Oriel) dwdh (of his beloved, or, his beloved) [some also say chieftain] va?s (and I dragged) . . .

. . . the town belonged to Kamosh and to Moab. And I brought thence the altar-hearth of his Beloved, and I dragged

Or possibly:

. . . the town belonged to Kemosh and to Moab. And I brought thence Aral (Oriel), his beloved (or possibly governor), and I dragged . . .

Line 31 is badly damaged and possibly reads (from right to left):

?a? ?qw? ?b hb b?y nnrwjw xrah nax? ta t(rl yd

For which Lemaire has translated:

"[. . .] the sheep of the land. And the house of David dwelt in Horonen."

Don't ask me how though because I cannot see it. Apparently Lemaire has re-defined some of the characters.

W. F. Albright has: "[. . .] of the land. And as for Hauronen, there dwelt in it [. . . and]"




Owww, well, no 'house of david' apparently ... (a different theory says it reads 'his David', which could indicate a place, but never a person, because

personal suffixes are not used in personal names in Semitic writings. However most agree Lemaire simply has made stuff up. )

About a type of floor plan which alledgedly proves Israelites have been around;

Quote:

The most striking aspect of the house is that the floor plan is identical to the Israelite "four-room house" of the later Iron Age in Palestine

(Holladay 1992a).

At one time the 'four-roomed' house was taken as being purely an Israelite construction. However, your author shows ignorance of the latest research when he

fails to inform his readers that 'four-roomed' houses have been discovered all over syria-palestine, it is no longer taken as evidence of Israelite

settlement.




This settlement type is not unique to Israelites, so this poses a problem. It has become a rather weak argument.

An archaeological professor about websites in general and about this topic in specific: (note the text in italics are not his words.)

Quote:

Without identifying inscriptions, we will never know for sure if the earlier people were Israelites. Contemporary references to Jacob's 12 sons

have not been found.


Ok, he says that we will never know for sure if the earlier people were Israelites, so we will just say that they are because it supports our pet theory, to

hell with decent evidence, circumstantial will do for us as long as we can support our fairytale in some way, oh and since our audience are uninformed

desparate people they will swallow any garbage we present them with.

You need ot be a bit more critical of your sources, pro-Christian 'biblical archaeology' websites, are ALL full of unsuported assertions, poor research and,

in some cases, blatant lies.




Same archaeologist about a biblical contridiction;

Quote:

Well if one verse is wrong and the other right then the one that is wrong is proven wrong, hence there is an error in the Bible.

Let's break it down. 1 Kings 61: arrives at date of around 1440 BCE, then Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Israelites built the cities of Rameses and Pithom.

There was no Pharaoh called Rameses until c. 1304 BCE, thus the 1 Kings reference is in error.

However, if the 1 Kings reference is correct, then the Israelite would be settled in Canaan from about one hundred years before there ever was a pharaoh

called Rameses.

One of these references is incorrect, therefore the Bible is an erroneous document. This is just a very small problem with the primary history, we haven't

even looked at specific archaeological evidence, and we havent even looked at the different verions of these myths in different versions of the Hebrew

Bible.





Cheers
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/06/06 08:23

Quote:

I just don't think that the evidence is as conclusive as you'd like me to believe. In fact, its pretty easy to see. Random news clippings about them being wrong about the distance of objects by 100s of millions of lightyears, etc.



You misunderstood something. If a scientist measures a property X (f.i. the distance of a star), he gives as result X +/-Y. Y is the error in his measurement, and has to be carefully derived.

Thus, science does not tell that the age of the univese is 13.7 billion years. It's 13.7 (+/-0.2) billion years. 20 years ago, it was like 10 (+/-5) billion years. And in 5 years, after evaluation of the Plack probe date, it will be more precise, like 13.72 (+/-0.03) billion years.

Even theories are modified or replaced whenever a new observation contradicts them. Because a change of a theory generates many Nobel prizes, all scientists are eager to find such contradictions. Thus, if a theory survives this process - as evolution, or Big Bang - you can be pretty sure that it's consistent with all current observations.

Hope this helps understanding.

Quote:

he's the God who created thermodynamics. Which, coincidentally, predicts that life will never start on its own. If you want a lesson in thermodynamics, just ask.



Of course. We had already discussed early in this thread how life started, and I thought we were finished with that, but if you want to give a lesson, please go ahead. For your preparation:

http://www.wiley.com/legacy/college/boyer/0470003790/reviews/thermo/thermo_intro.htm
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/06/06 08:58

@Phemox and Dan: The discussion about archeological confirmation or refutation of bible stories is interesting - I even read today in the newspaper that the Garden of Eden was identified in Turkey - but it does not fit in this thread. I think the bible contradictions thread, or a new one, is a better place.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/06/06 17:06

Quote:

ou misunderstood something. If a scientist measures a property X (f.i. the distance of a star), he gives as result X +/-Y. Y is the error in his measurement, and has to be carefully derived.

Thus, science does not tell that the age of the univese is 13.7 billion years. It's 13.7 (+/-0.2) billion years. 20 years ago, it was like 10 (+/-5) billion years. And in 5 years, after evaluation of the Plack probe date, it will be more precise, like 13.72 (+/-0.03) billion years.




Yeah, I think you're getting earth and universe ages mixed up with real values like the speed of light, or pi. Because those only change by a small amount to become more accurate. The earth has gone from several hundred million years to 4.6 billion years. Its not accuracy correction when it doubles in value every twenty years (until today). Could you imagine if the speed of light did that?

You may be looking at only the most recent measurements of the universe by the way. It too takes leaps and bounds. Its not just shaving off the excess error, its proving that the old values were error altogether. Yet they're touted as truth.

I understand that they'll modify the age when they find new 'evidence'. But real life values don't change that much. We take a measurement, and then refine it, we don't throw out the original measurement and make a whole new one. That just proves that we didn't know it to begin with, and to me proves that we never really can know for sure (despite claims).
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/06/06 17:10

Oh yeah, did we discuss the origin of life? I thought I mentioned how experiments failed, and then you guys just kind of gave up on that one.

edit: That link you gave was pretty much what I've already caught up on, except trying to go to the third page gave me an error, so I didn't see what I assumed would be the the conclusion about life being able to start on its own.

But then I can guess the article is going to conclude with the observation that thermodynamics permits some of the materials of life to be made. In which case we'll be right back where we started.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/06/06 17:26

Quote:

Oh yeah, did we discuss the origin of life? I thought I mentioned how experiments failed, and then you guys just kind of gave up on that one.




Not quite. As the errors in your post were pointed out, you mentioned something along the line "I have to look this up" (if I remember right) and then didn't come back to that topic.

If you've meanwhile looked it up, you're free to give your thermodynamics lesson now. BTW don't be afraid to follow the link - it's just a general introduction into thermodynamics for biologists, and does not mention the beginning of life.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/07/06 05:41

Ah, I must have gotten caught up in the other debates. I think I've done that quite a few times, which reminds me also to get back on that bible thread.

Anyway, yeah I did actually follow through, got myself a lesson in thermodynamics (similar to what you linked to, although I could only read the first two pages of your website before I got an error).

But the website I got my lesson in thermodynamics presented basically what your source did. It was divided into three lessons. One was theory, two was practical application, and three was practical application also, but more specific.

So, yes, we can continue this one. Although I'll probably brush up on thermodynamics again.

But anyway, I did follow the link. Is it not giving an error to you on the third page?, because I tried hitting continue about four times and....maybe its just my browser.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/07/06 14:16

The third page reads fine here, at least with Firefox. Here's the direct link:

http://www.wiley.com/legacy/college/boyer/0470003790/reviews/thermo/thermo_equil.htm


- btw to your earth age problem: I don't know the history of the earth age determination, but suppose that an estimate based on sedimentation speed was used before we had radiometric dating. This way a lower boundary of the earth age could be estimated, like several hundred million years. Maybe you were confusing the lower boundary with the real age?
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: cause - 06/07/06 16:10

It produces errors with Firefox also. The first time it opened fine, but when I went to the table of contents it gave me an error, then subsequent attempts to open it failed and succeeded. It seems to open up sometimes, but sometimes it doesnt, I dont know why.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/09/06 19:16

Actually, before I present my case. I'm just wondering. How do you believe life can start without violating thermodynamics? In simple terms. If you can (I'm not sure what you believe) would you be able to sum it up in a short paragraph?

Not to completely make your entire case, but just so that we have a starting point.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/10/06 08:22

I assume you are referring to the usual thermodynamics argument on some creationist websites, like this: "According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy can not decrease in a closed system. Life reduces entropy, thus the development of life is impossible by nature laws and requires a supernatural force".

You can look up the usual rebuttal on evolution sites, but here it is in short. The problem arises only because creationists do not understand what entropy is. Life on earth in fact increases entropy by dissipating energy from the sun. It would only reduce entropy if it happened without any energy transfer.

You can also see the obvious fallacy of the creationist argument when you consider that if it were true, not only abiogenesis, but also every birth or every growing of a plant would require a supernatural miracle.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/10/06 20:26

Well, then let's start at the origin, which I figure would be a good place. My first refutation to your argument (excluding evolution for now) will be that the early molecules for life are actually hindered by energy from the sun. The sun's energy (from what I understand ultraviolet light specifically) tends to break them down, reverting them to simpler molecules.

An even bigger hindrance to any workaround would be that you're not talking about overcoming thermodynamics once, but probably many many times as you 'stack' the molecules just right to finally make the first cell. As you and I both know, each of these levels of 'stacking' will organize heat/energy, making it more likely that the stack will 'fall over'. I'm wondering, because in reading evolutionist ramblings (on other websites) about this topic, no explanation has been given that makes scientific sense. I certainly could read evolutionist websites, but apparently you've seen something that I haven't. I'm hoping we can get some progressive understanding acheived, then.

Evolutionists like to talk about the sun, but the sun plastering energy all over everything is only part of the picture. It damages already created cells for one thing (let alone cells trying to create themselves). However, in general architecture, car paint, etc are all damaged by the sun's energy.

What plants do with the sun's energy (which is more relevant to the descent with modification aspect of this discussion) does little to explain how simple molecules ('simple' like those necessary to construct life) are expected to overcome the laws of thermodynamics.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/11/06 09:27

@Irish: Life was supposed to begin in water. Ultraviolet rays don't penetrate water that is deeper than a few meters. And they have nothing to do with thermodynamics.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/11/06 18:02

When molecules break down, they release heat/energy. So when something breaks a molecule down, it is in fact because of thermodynamics. Ultraviolet rays are created because of thermodynamics, and they destroy things because of thermodynamics.

You can't escape thermodynamics in the water, because of hydrolosis. The oxygen in the water will pull the molecules apart. This releases any organized heat in whatever pre-life molecules MAY exist in the water.

I think God purposely designed the universe to make it obvious we need Him to start life.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/12/06 09:20

Wow. I've seldom seen so many errors in so small a post, so we need to set some basic physics facts straight.

First, your molecules don't "release heat/energy" by breaking down. On the contrary, they consume energy for breaking. Otherwise they'd break down immediately without any ultraviolet rays.

Second, energy is not the same as heat. In fact most of thermodynamics deals with the difference between energy and heat.

Third, ultraviolet rays are not "created because of thermodynamics", they are created by electron transitions which are described by quantum mechanics. There's no thermodynamics involved.

Forth, thermodynamics is a statistical science. It does not tell you anything about the synthesis or breakdown of single molecules. Molecule behavior and chemical reactions are governed by electrodynamics and quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics however describes the statistical behavior of particle ensembles, normally in the magnitude of 10^23 particles (Avogadro constant) or above.

Fifth, "oxygen in water" is produced by plants and algae. And at the time of abiogenesis obviously there weren't any plants and algae and thus no oxygen in the atmosphere or in water.

And sixth, as you are now permanently mentioning thermodynamics, I think it's time for your announced thermodynamics argument or lesson. Because I fail to see at the moment what thermodynamics has to do with our discussion at all.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/12/06 18:43

I've never seen so many errors in such a small post myself either.

Maybe I used the wrong diction, but technically I wasn't wrong.

Quote:

First, your molecules don't "release heat/energy" by breaking down.




When these molecules come together, they organize heat. Heat doesn't like to be organized. But as long as I've used the word Heat, let me explain I'm not talking about temperature. Thermodynamics says heat flows from a hot place to a cold place. All action, light, etc in our universe is part of this heat flow. That's why scientists talk about a dark, motionless universe, sometime in our future. Light has a more specific scientific cause, but its produced in accordance with thermodynamics.

Quote:

Thermodynamics is, from an engineer’s point of view, the ultimate science. It explains the operation of the entire natural universe. That is what makes the study of thermodynamics so interesting, exciting, and relevant




Quote:

Second, energy is not the same as heat. In fact most of thermodynamics deals with the difference between energy and heat.




Heat is a form of energy, like kinetic energy, potential energy, and chemical energy, etc etc.

Again, I'm not talking about temperature. Temperature does rise the more you heat something, but temperature is very different.

Quote:

You can melt more ice with 1,000 gallons of 90 degree (F) water than 1 teaspoon of 200 degree (F) water. That is because there is more heat in 1,000 gallons of 90 degree water than there is in 1 teaspoon of 200 degree water. Just because the teaspoon is hotter, it doesn’t mean that it contains more heat than all those gallons of cooler water.




Quote:

Third, ultraviolet rays are not "created because of thermodynamics",




Bad choice of words. Ultraviolet rays are the result of the inefficiency of the work being done in stars. If stars were 100% 'efficient' they would produce no light, heat, or what have you. So its still part of thermodynamics.

Quote:

Fifth, "oxygen in water" is produced by plants and algae. And at the time of abiogenesis obviously there weren't any plants and algae and thus no oxygen in the atmosphere or in water.




So water was just H2 for a while? Also, I thought part of the theory was that water was created by valcanoes, by combining oxygen and hydrogen before spewing steam into the air.

I'm talking about the oxygen in the H20 molecule. Or the O, if you will.

Quote:

And sixth, as you are now permanently mentioning thermodynamics, I think it's time for your announced thermodynamics argument or lesson. Because I fail to see at the moment what thermodynamics has to do with our discussion at all.




You don't see what thermodynamics has to do with life? So then the first form of life didn't have to worry about being destroyed by the disorganization of heat? Why are they trying to find out how clay could have kept the original molecules from breaking down, then?
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/13/06 11:04

Quote:

When these molecules come together, they organize heat. Heat doesn't like to be organized.



Hmm. I know what heat is and what organizing is, but admit that I have no idea what you mean with "molecules organize heat". Do you mean entropy? If you've got this from some website, would you post the link? I can then look it up to learn at least what they mean.

Quote:

Ultraviolet rays are the result of the inefficiency of the work being done in stars. If stars were 100% 'efficient' they would produce no light, heat, or what have you. So its still part of thermodynamics.



Consider my eyebrows accordingly raised. Stars do hydrogen fusion. This is a very efficient process - in fact the most efficient possible in that temperature/pressure range. And what has efficiency to do with UV rays? Maybe you misunderstood something? Can you also post the link to the source of that information?

Quote:

So water was just H2 for a while? Also, I thought part of the theory was that water was created by valcanoes, by combining oxygen and hydrogen before spewing steam into the air.
I'm talking about the oxygen in the H20 molecule. Or the O, if you will.



Ah, I see. You were just confusing atoms with molecules. The "Oxygen in water" that is dangerous for molecules is not the O atom in H2O. It is the O2 (oxygen) molecule dissolved in H2O (water).

O2 is the oxygen gas in today's atmosphere and in the ocean. It can easily break up into two O atoms. This is the reason why oxygen tends to attack molecules by binding its O atoms at them. This is a potential exothermic process: it can indeed "release energy" unlike your previously mentioned breaking up molecules by UV rays.

H2O however is not giving up it's O atom unless you apply external energy, like an electric field. Thus, water has normally no negative effect on molecules. It can not prevent the forming of proteins. This is just the reason why water is so important for life and why we're consisting mainly of water.

Quote:

You don't see what thermodynamics has to do with life? So then the first form of life didn't have to worry about being destroyed by the disorganization of heat? Why are they trying to find out how clay could have kept the original molecules from breaking down, then?



No, I just wanted you to finally post your long-announced lesson why thermodynamics prevented the beginning of life. BTW I am not insisting on thermodynamics - you may post any new reasons why you think life could not have begun.

But I fear that when we're now continue arguing about UV rays, processes in stars, atoms and molecules etc. it's not much fun anymore. You lack knowledge in that area, which is ok, but trying to defend your statements is beginning to get a little ridiculous. Let's better go back to life and biology.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/13/06 18:36

I can't get to this right now, because I have to work soon. However, I would look up the definition of hydrolysis if I were you because defending the idea that the oxygen in water is harmless is starting to get a little ridiculous.

hydro-water; liquid

hydrolysis-Decomposition of a chemical compound by reaction with water

It didn't say reaction with atmosphere absorbed in water, but with water.

You were right that the atmosphere's 02 is also very destructive. Oxygen is one of the most corrosive things on earth. Which is why there really is no safe haven for early life. Water is no exception.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/13/06 20:04

Just a quick note as I've seen you answered:

Hydrolysis is a chemical reaction that splits molecules and binds OH groups from water to molecule rests or metal ions. It occurs in water, but is caused by acids or enzymes. It has nothing to do whatsoever with "oxygen in water" or with any other part of our discussion.

Looking forward to your further answers.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/14/06 05:30

I'm short on time again, but I'll leave with this:

Quote:

It can be argued that the most crucial challenge unanswered by this theory is how the relatively simple organic building blocks polymerise and form more complex structures, interacting in consistent ways to form a protocell. For example, in an aqueous environment hydrolysis of oligomers/polymers into their constituent monomers would be favored over the condensation of individual monomers into polymers. Also, the Miller experiment produces many substances that would undergo cross-reactions with the amino acids or terminate the peptide chain.




Any other objections?
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/14/06 10:15

Hmm. I admit that I'm now confused. Hydrolysis in organic chemistry, as to my knowledge, is the mechanism used by enzymes for splitting polymeres. Do I understand right that now not thermodynamics, not oxygen, not UV rays, but enzymes killed the early peptids? What did the author of the quote assume about where those enzymes came from? Or what else caused the hydrolysis? Can you post the link to that page?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/15/06 02:35

Before I even get back to anything else, let's just get this out of the way.

Hydrolysis can effect organic molecules just like it can effect inorganic molecules.

Quote:

At first glance, the RNA world hypothesis seems implausible because, in today's world, large RNA molecules are inherently fragile and can easily be broken down into their constituent nucleotides with hydrolysis. Even without hydrolysis RNA will eventually break down from background radiation. (Pääbo 1993, Lindahl 1993).




http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/RNA%20world%20hypothesis


They mention, as a solution, the synthetic-only PNA molecule.

The website I got the quote in the post above this from is wikipedia. But unfortunately I found it through google and can't remember what I typed in to get that specific entry. Hang on...

Duh, here it is.

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

I kept searching for biogenesis instead of origin of life, which is why I couldn't find it.

Quote:

Hydrolysis is a chemical process in which a molecule is cleaved into two parts by the addition of a molecule of water. [...] In the discussion below, the focus is on hydrolysis of organic compounds, but one should bear in mind that there are also many well known examples of inorganic hydrolysis.




Now, based on what I'm reading on these unbiased (towards creation anyway) websites, the worst that can be said of me is that I've been mislead.

Quote:

Do I understand right that now not thermodynamics, not oxygen, not UV rays, but enzymes killed the early peptids?




Well, technically thermodynamics don't do anything. Its just an explanation of why (not how) pretty much everything happens in the universe.

Ultraviolet rays are dangerous, but won't do anything to pre-life in the water. That's why I mentioned hydrolysis.

Thermodynamics only comes into the picture explaining the flow of energy that causes the molecules to break down into simpler forms. Not the cause of the energy, of course, which you seem to think I'm saying. But that's besides the point.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/15/06 09:25

The RNA world hypothesis is only one of many hypotheses of the origin of life. The six most important are listed under your Wikipedia link. Because RNA can act as enzyme, hydrolysis is indeed involved in the beginning of life by RNA - thus I was wrong with my otherwise statement. RNA can split itself by hydrolysis, and in fact needs to for reproduction.

- But how does thermodynamics "explain the flow of energy" for breaking molecules? Which thermodynamics law are you referring to?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/15/06 23:31

I guess I just supposed the RNA World hypothesis was the one that everyone assumed made the most sense.

I suppose this will complicate my arguments against random biogenesis.
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/16/06 06:46

Well, it should in fact make your arguments easier. Scientists currently defend their preferred origin theory by attacking the others. This gives you plenty of serious, scientific arguments against any of the theories.

I have not yet up my mind which theory I like most. I'll be away from this forum the next time, but after I'm back I can give you one of those theories that you can then attack if you want, and I'll defend it.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/16/06 21:57

Sweet!
Posted By: jcl

Re: cause - 06/26/06 14:40

I've started a new thread about biogenesis.

http://www.coniserver.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/666930/an/0/page/0#Post666930
Posted By: capanno

Re: cause - 06/26/06 16:44

Please change the topic's name.

Its not science vs creation, its evolution vs creation.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: cause - 06/26/06 21:24

This topic is probably going to slow down now that we've split biogenesis into another thread. So changing the name would be rather pointless.
Posted By: A.Russell

Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/12/06 13:42

Evolution is a science, creation is superstition (i.e. outside of your fundamentalists' [censored] up brains there is no positive evidence of creation -just the reverse "it's so complicated that only a supreme being -the supreme being of the dogma that has brainwashed me- could have created it all!").
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/12/06 15:21

Quote:

Its not science vs creation, its evolution vs creation.




Why? If science is the method to disprove creation, then 'science vs. creation' is a good title. Yes, evolution might be the opposing theory in general, but there's more science that could or actually is discrediting parts and or the whole of creation, not just the 'evolution theory' alone.

Quote:

Evolution is a science, creation is superstition




I totally agree. Infact, I really can't grasp their basic idea of, there's got to be "something devine creating everything from nothing without any evidence supporting our theory", but accepting random spontaneous creation of matter? I don't think so. Lol.

Repeat after me: It's "Cogito, ergo sum" (Latin: "I am thinking, therefore I exist"). It's not "Deus creat, ergo sum". How the hack could you end up concluding that?

It's getting old, I know, but being created by a God simply is not logical. And, no not everything that's unlogical is untrue, but in this particular case, how could we even know for sure?

Cheers
Posted By: capanno

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/12/06 18:51

I heard a quote where someone said:

God must love stupid people. he made so many.

Just thought id add that.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/12/06 19:40

Quote:

God must love stupid people. he made so many.




/semi-serious and sarcastic:
Lol, hey don't start what you don't want to see through to the end!! Hahaha, suddenly you seem to be questioning wether or not we are really created in his image, aren't you? Oww but wait, no, we wouldn't want to see God as a stupid person, that would be so disrespectful. You've just sinned and you didn't even know it, don't worry though, I'm sure he'll forgive you.

/more serious
The quote you've mentioned only proves once more to me that religious people are or can be filled with lot's of ignorance, arrogance, a weird kind of 'blind loyalty' and are to damn confident for only having a freaking soapbubble-theory. Confidence as in dead ignorant confidence. I don't know, there must be method to the madness somewhere, ... lol, where?

No prove, no solid base, no arguments that even come close to even start thinking about making any kind of claim that justifies what religion actually does. I guess lies become holy somehow just by telling them long enough.

Trust me on my words when I say that hope doesn't create truth, lies don't get you to 'heaven', whatever that may be, and all uncertainties are just that, uncertainties.

Yeah, I guess I should keep my voice down, otherwise those bubbles might pop.

/end of serious sarcasm, disclaimer: don't confuse this for anything personal please. Call me confused, call me an idiot, mimick the other religious guys saying I'm 'spiritually blind'. I just don't understand the logic, or maybe ... just maybe .. I understand perfectly ...

Cheers
Posted By: lostclimate

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/13/06 04:08

honestly we have no proof of a god... but as a christian i look at it this way, so many things to believe in and one has to be right somewere because those unanswerable questions have to be answered somewere and out of all religions christianity seems to have the most logical backing, do i think god is "supernatural"? no, i think there is a larger system than just what we see from earth, i think there has to be some system made by someone larger than us that may even live in his own system, idk, but out of all explainations christianity seems to make the most sense, take the parting of the red sea for instance, recorded in history, and proofed to some extent by a small patch in the current day area of land under water that was only a small with of water that shallow surrounded by incredibly deep water, you know what scientists found under there??? gilded chariot wheels.. things like this make christianity the only logical explaination as for athiests, well you dont really have much of a case either, because your answer is basically, "i dont know the answers, but i know christianity is not"
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/13/06 06:36

Christianity has the very same "logical backing" as Islam, Hinduism, or Voodoo - zilch. A religion is not about logic, but about a spiritual state of mind.

For that reason, history, logic, or science can never contradict a religion. You can easily prove that many events from the bible never happened, but would that make your Christian belief worthless? Certainly not.

Problems only arise when people try to mix their religion with the secular world view. This produces strange results like Geocentrism or Creationism. Until the 19th century, the Roman-Catholic church and many Christians still believed that the earth was the center of the universe, despite scientists had proven this wrong centuries ago. The reason was that the church felt attacked by science - unnecessarily. For the same reason, a few Christians and Muslims still believe in Creationism today.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/13/06 09:39

Quote:

For that reason, history, logic, or science can never contradict a religio




I disagree here.. science often contradicts religious dogma (which in many ways IS religion).
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/13/06 10:12

Dogma is not necessarily part of a religion. For instance in most countries outside the US, Christianity is a relatively modern, dogma-free religion. They accept science and have no problems with the contradictions between the bible and science/history. Many Christians even don't believe in the Trinity anymore.

Other examples for relatively dogma-free religions are Buddhism and Taoism.
Posted By: lostclimate

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/13/06 13:53

im not saying many things in science dont contradict christianity, i am saying tho, that you can look at events in the bible and there is still small proofs that some of the stuff may have happened, were as the other religions you dont here about this type of thing.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/13/06 15:02

Quote:

im not saying many things in science dont contradict christianity, i am saying tho, that you can look at events in the bible and there is still small proofs that some of the stuff may have happened, were as the other religions you dont here about this type of thing.




Okey, let me just counter your 'there's some proof' in this case:

-They didn't find chariot wheels there .. Yes, they found one or two coral objects that looked like a chariot wheel and axe, but most of them turned out to be just coral on coral, not coral on wood or any other material.

-Also, think about it for a minute, the bible said 'all the chariots of Egypt' went in pursuit, right? Well, what happened to all those many many other chariots? Kinda strange they vanished indeed. Especially when thinking about 'the speculation that there were 20,000 chariots destroyed that day.' We would have found at least 500 chariots or remnants of them if this speculation was anywhere near the original amount of them. We've found only about four possible chariot objects? That's no evidence for a pursuit at all, even if they are chariot wheels...

-Don't underestimate the cooperation of Jordan, Egypt and Isreal to promote tourism in that area either... As for the wheels, they've clearly jumped to conclusions there and now it's news as if it's truth.

-According to photographs on 'arkdyscovery.com' (yes, obviously a pro-christianity site) one of the coral objects looked very much like a chariot wheel, however at least one other photograph there is a fake, because you can see two different types of chariot wheels, one of them absolutely didn't even exist yet back in the times this all supposedly happened ... 18th dynasty wheels my ass, one of them is more like a way more recent chariot wheel. Visit that site, buy some books on chariot wheels and see for yourself.

-There's only one photograph on 'arkdyscovery.com' that seems to me to be a 4 spoke 18th dynasty chariot wheel, but they haven't actually excavated it. Kinda strange when they supposedly found it, when searching for gold.

-Apart from that, three other photographs look like coral, not necessarily an axe of a chariot like they want to see it.

-Another thing, popular believe is, the sea was parted by God's strong wind. Well, according to the description of the 'walls of water' this would have caused, it's simply impossible for people to even survive standing in such a wind. It's simply physically and mathematically impossible.

Site with comments from both sides ...

-Also there are some problems with the timeframe with this whole escape too. Man on horseback are way faster than chariots, and still both drowned? In a pursuit, the fastest go the fastest and catch up, they won't stick around the chariots.

-Also, lot's of chariots supposedly were destroyed. What ever happened to all those egyptians and their horses?

Quote:

A Swedish scientist who believes the Red Sea was split says while Humphreys is correct about the Aqaba crossing, there are no natural, scientific explanations for the parting miracle described in Scripture.

"The wind did not separate the water," says Lennart Moller of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. "No person could be in that wind and survive. ... If God has created all the Earth, it's no problem for Him to separate the water for a while."




He forgot to add, there's no geological evidence for it either, which would have been the case if the 'parting of the sea' with very high 'water walls' had actually happened. There would have been enormous forces involved when that water came down again.



This could be anything. So again what proof?
Supposedly found by Ron Wyatt, which he claims to be an 8 spoked 18th dynasty-only chariot wheel. I say, no offence, but dream on.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 10/14/06 22:57

Quote:

Also, think about it for a minute, the bible said 'all the chariots of Egypt' went in pursuit, right? Well, what happened to all those many many other chariots? Kinda strange they vanished indeed. Especially when thinking about 'the speculation that there were 20,000 chariots destroyed that day.' We would have found at least 500 chariots or remnants of them if this speculation was anywhere near the original amount of them. We've found only about four possible chariot objects? That's no evidence for a pursuit at all, even if they are chariot wheels...





There is a lack of physical evidence for other historical events that we accept as true. So, who knows?

Quote:

Another thing, popular believe is, the sea was parted by God's strong wind. Well, according to the description of the 'walls of water' this would have caused, it's simply impossible for people to even survive standing in such a wind. It's simply physically and mathematically impossible.




Argument from lack of imagination? Once the water is parted, it needent be windy anywhere except on the walls of water to keep them away. It doesn't have to be extremely windy all the way between the walls of water.

Quote:

Also there are some problems with the timeframe with this whole escape too. Man on horseback are way faster than chariots, and still both drowned? In a pursuit, the fastest go the fastest and catch up, they won't stick around the chariots.





There wouldn't be that big of a difference in speed, and why even send chariots if you're just going to ditch them anyway?

Quote:

-Also, lot's of chariots supposedly were destroyed. What ever happened to all those egyptians and their horses?




Dead people float, and then rot, and disappear. As far as any other physical evidence? Have they thoroughly combed, and dug up the sea floor looking for evidence over every bit?

Quote:

He forgot to add, there's no geological evidence for it either, which would have been the case if the 'parting of the sea' with very high 'water walls' had actually happened. There would have been enormous forces involved when that water came down again.





What exactly would you expect to find, in this case? Non-conformity of the ocean floor? Like what we surely find?
Posted By: inFusion

Re: Science and Creation - 01/22/07 12:57

Has anyone answered the Mississippi Delta thing? Sry It would just take years to read all of this

Quote:

1 - River deltas. The Mississippi River dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cm] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico each year—continually enlarging the delta area. Yet the Mississippi delta is not large. Calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years (4,620 years, to be exact). If the world were 120,000 years old, that delta would extend all the way to the North Pole .—pp. 27-28.




Simple to disprove this. Why should the Mississippi have existed for 120,000 years? Then it is 4000 years old, so what, the earth is constantly changing its face. Rivers arise and decay constantly. WHAT KIND OF ARGUMENT IS THIS?!

I've read a lot of pro-creationism-arguments in this thread. I must say half of them are false, the other half is just stupid and ridiculous.

I can't agree more with Matt Aufderheide. You can answer any question with "God did it" aswell as you can answer anything with "A giant spaghetti monster did it". Who can prove this to be wrong? Noone. Who can prove me wrong if I say "I don't exist, god only makes you thinkg that I exist."?

...
You know what? In fact, I am Jesus Christ. It's true! Really! God just forbid me to cause miracles or do anything that would clearly identify me beeing Jesus.
....
10€ to anyone who can disprove that I am Jesus!
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 01/22/07 13:59

Quote:

What exactly would you expect to find, in this case? Non-conformity of the ocean floor? Like what we surely find?




A non-conformity as in no subsurface landbridge part that seems to be untouched. There should have been traces of massive erosion there. You would definately find evidence.

The non-conformity you probably are referring to is the higher part of the seabottom compared to both more left and right of that bottom, as if it's a land bridge underwater, right?

Well, imagine the force of those walls of the sea, according to the bible two massive walls and very high. If those come crashing down, that would be very visible on that land part's bottom which lays higher than the surrounding underwater surface. The erosion effect would be like a dam breaking, but instead of a crack becomming a hole, with these sea walls it would be water everywhere comming down and the force would be even stronger.

Quote:

It doesn't have to be extremely windy all the way between the walls of water.




It has to be according to the physics on our earth, apart from that doesn't the bible mention it was wind making the sea walls rise? Thus, you'd need winds that would literally blow people to death for such sea walls to rise. Off course your god can do anything, but according to laws of physics humans would simply die in such an event.

Quote:

There is a lack of physical evidence for other historical events that we accept as true. So, who knows?




Lack of evidence or lack of investigation and research? Sometimes it doesn't take much at all to prove something happened. Still I do agree, there are many events for which physical evidence (probably) lacks. Still, if something isn't presumable then why take it for granted anyway without evidence? If there's no evidence any speculation is quite pointless, unless there's evidence in favor of the opposite.

Quote:

There wouldn't be that big of a difference in speed, and why even send chariots if you're just going to ditch them anyway?




The difference in speed would be huge. Imagine a chariot drive through loose sand with wooden wheels, those would be awefully slow compared to a man on horseback with no extra payload of dragging a chariot through sand. (I know, a beach is probably a bit harder making it easier to ride on).

A little question by the way about what the bible says; they didn't ditch the chariots on purpose did they?



By now I know religion doesn't seem to work by means of logic ór evidence for that matter, honestly something that greatly disturbs me. I'm not saying the things we don't know should always make sense, but I ám saying the things we do know in this respect máke sense just fine. So why ignore the parts we do know in favor of believing in parts we don't know?

Cheers
Posted By: inFusion

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 01/22/07 16:06

Quote:

as for athiests, well you dont really have much of a case either, because your answer is basically, "i dont know the answers, but i know christianity is not"




Wrong. Our answer is: "We don't know yet, so we won't make things up like Religion does, instead we are going to continue researching and answer the important questions when we know the right answer."

Why should we know all the answers yet? Did humans know how to build airplanes 300 years ago? No, but they found out through research. So why shouldn't we yet have no complete answer to the origin of the universe? It's that simple.
Posted By: lostclimate

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 01/23/07 04:07

yes, and i know its not a falsifiable claim to say this, but if you dont know yet, how can you say a higher being with its own system does not exist, also, i just read a little in the beginning of this thread, matt claimed that you cant be considered a true scientist and not believe in darwinist theories, not true, a true scientist would say that if darwin was right, we should be looking for the half monkey, half man, or that there should be a cross between a crocodile and an alligator somewere with a fourth tooth that doesnt extend all the way up, were is the evolutionary gradient?
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 01/23/07 15:52

If you are looking at the present, you are looking at a lot of branches of evolution (the ends of branches to be more precisely, eventhough they still grow). It's more difficult to see the gradient, especially cross-species. However you can see it in fossils all the time. There are plenty examples of fossils with rudimentary bone structures or other features that they have in common with other species, sometimes even of a different order. We already know a lot about humans to in this respect, hence the claim of apes being our ancestors. Always remember though that at the time of transition (which was infact a gradient itself!) between ape and man, there weren't a lot of us just yet. Finding very old human remains is rare and slows the overall research in this down. That's why once DNA was discovered people looked into DNA differences too.

When you have a tree it's very difficult if not impossible to judge his age when all you have is the end of a branche.

Evolution is a bit like that, but then we're not after the age, but moreso looking for the stems/roots of a species and it's family ties. This is infact possible. The idea of a 'missing link' only indicates that perhaps the chain should be one link longer instead. It's a bit like wanting to find pure green next to pure yellow, if you wish to find that good luck, because in a (normal color) gradient that's impossible.

Quote:

We don't know yet, so we won't make things up like Religion does




If we don't know yet, what they claim could be true if their source is accurate, so they're not necessarily making things up. Eventhough in generally I would definately agree with your comment, because I don't believe the bible can be accurate after such a long time,

Cheers
Posted By: capanno

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 01/29/07 19:15

Recently Ive done research about evolution and biology. Its evident that most fascist evolutionists like matt, have no idea what neo darwinism requires, and what the theory teaches. They idolize richard dawkins, who, Im sorry, is a total loon. He's so driven by emotion he cant even asses his evidence critically.

I encourage every neo darwinian to spend time to research what they believe in. Then they will realize why top evolutionists confess that there is no evidence for the modern theory of evolution, or that it doesnt explains what we see today at all. I know this is hard to get your head around, but If you know what the theory teaches youll hopefully realize.

I recommend Dr Lee M Spetner's book, Not by chance. He shows on a molecular-biology level how ridiculous neo darwinism is. And before it gets accused of bias, he is an atheist.

have a nice day!

c
Posted By: jcl

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 01/29/07 21:04

When posting on this forum, please try to give substantial arguments rather than mere ranting. Thank you.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 01/29/07 21:55

Quote:

not true, a true scientist would say that if darwin was right, we should be looking for the half monkey, half man, or that there should be a cross between a crocodile and an alligator somewere with a fourth tooth that doesnt extend all the way up, were is the evolutionary gradient?




It constantly amazes me, although i suppose it shouldnt, that poeple who argue about evolution often have absolutely no understanding of it at all.

These poeple have no substantial arguements.
Posted By: NITRO777

Pepsi vs Coke - 01/29/07 22:20

Quote:

Recently Ive done research about evolution and biology.


Perhaps you should summarize a few points from your recent reading, I am also interested in what you learned from Spetner's book, as I have not read it yet, I have definitely heard of it.
Posted By: lostclimate

Re: Pepsi vs Coke - 01/29/07 23:10

Quote:

It constantly amazes me, although i suppose it shouldnt, that poeple who argue about evolution often have absolutely no understanding of it at all.

These poeple have no substantial arguements.




I will admit i am not the type to study something such as this, but my basic understand of it is that (dependent on which way you follow) either slow adaptations happened over long period of time (through mutation of a genes) or at various times through out the time line there was a large mutations happened, even these large ones should show a lot more of a detailed gradient than there currently is.
Posted By: JibbSmart

Re: Pepsi vs Coke - 01/30/07 02:38

Coke
Quote:

Quote:

not true, a true scientist would say that if darwin was right, we should be looking for the half monkey, half man, or that there should be a cross between a crocodile and an alligator somewere with a fourth tooth that doesnt extend all the way up, were is the evolutionary gradient?




It constantly amazes me, although i suppose it shouldnt, that poeple who argue about evolution often have absolutely no understanding of it at all.

These poeple have no substantial arguements.


i usually avoid these sorts of threads because they don't get anywhere. however i was having a lil peek at the latest page and this quote ^^ amused me

if lostclimate's ignorance is so amazing, matt, maybe u should explain in what way he's wrong? let's see a substantial argument

such a belittling accusation should surely be backed by some hard evidence, coming from an intelligent evolutionist such as yourself

julz
Posted By: sPlKe

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 01/31/07 10:25

i cant resist: PEPSI!

oh and about the half monkey half man: ever heard of a creature named lucy?
no?
well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29
Posted By: lostclimate

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 01/31/07 17:36

yes, but that is still a far distance from a monkey
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 01/31/07 17:57

Please learn some things about evolution before demanding "half-man-half-monkeys" --there is no such thing. Monkeys and humans share a very ancient common ancestor, thats all.

evolution doesnt work in the way you seem to think it does.
Posted By: capanno

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 02/01/07 08:13

Yep. lostclimate, please dont argue against evolution if you dont know what it says.

Here is a paper written by dr Spetner. It contains points from his book.

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp

spike, if you want to argue for evolution, dont come with ridiculous 'evidence' like lucy. Dont embarrass the evolutionists camp.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 02/01/07 12:16

It's funny the article is full of random this and random that, but selection is not random. Mutations may be random the way we perceive them, but doesn't have to be. Live a few years near a contaminated area and mutations will be the result as can be witnissed even today;

http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/effects.htm

Quote:

Since Evolution A is not an observable, it can only be substantiated by circumstantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence is principally the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons, and comparative anatomy. Circumstantial evidence must be accompanied by a theory of how it relates to what is to be proved.




Dr. Spetner's reasoning in the mentioned article is odd by the way, basically he claims we may only 'zoom in' instead of 'zoom out' to see the bigger picture based upon the current evidence.

However evidence should be the backbone of a theory, not the other way around. Personally I wouldn't call it circumstantitial evidence, but in the case of Evolution A the evidence we are talking about is infact true evidence especially since the full process of macro-evolution is not observable. You can't reproduce that in the timespan of a humanlife or even in a dozen or perhaps even in a million lifetimes because it goes at a crawling speed, sometimes may stop when in equilibrium and after that change rapidly. This can all be seen in the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons and comparative anatomy studies. So again, infact this is evidence,

Cheers
Posted By: capanno

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 02/01/07 13:06

OK. Consider this my last reply to you. I encourage you to buy dr Spetnet's book, and do some other research on sites that are not driven by the fascist neo darwin community.

This article might be very awkward to you, but please try to read it with an open mind.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

Cheers
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 02/01/07 13:40

I don't think he could change my view considering his little article I've just read, besides currently I'm still reading Richard Dawkins' books.

Quote:

This article might be very awkward to you, but please try to read it with an open mind.




Right ... you must be very open minded person when you consider the neo darwinian evolutionists to be fascists.

Again the people you quote seem to have little understanding of the exact theory of evolution and the creationist of the last article comes with rather pointless arguments.

He starts with assuming 'if God did xyz then ...', he talks as if thát assumption is truth and derives all arguments from that point of view and dismisses the real evidence.

Quote:

The alleged prediction and fulfillment are:
1. If universal common ancestry is true, then all organisms will have one or more traits in common.
2. All organisms have one or more traits in common.




Questioning both 1 and 2 shows that he doesn't quite understand the full effects of evolution and how it works. If a species evolves into another and into another and into another then eventually it will be alienated enough from his ancient ancestors to have become rather different, so this alleged prediction doesn't need to be as in real visible traits. Apart from that a lot of species do have a lot in common take for example universal commons like blood, bones, skin tissue, hair, eyes, ears, noses and limbs and it's functions. This may vary along certain species types, but basically there's really enough to say that a universal common ancestor is very plausible (eventhough it probably would be the very first living cell or whatever considering the many many branches of species evolution has caused).

Cheers
Posted By: Arathas

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 07/18/07 12:52

Having read only the first ten pages and then switched to pages 47-50, I'll just make some statement as to the "Why is earth the way it is?" thing. People tend to say that there has to be some kind of creator at work because otherwise you can't explain why earth is *just* the way it is, which seems to be *just* the only way it *can* exist. If you changed even some tiny parameters, earth becomes uninhabitable ...

Well, let me explain it this way: Take some standard-fantasy-novel about a brave young man who has to destroy some dark evil overlord despite thousands of dangerous situations and who is at the edge of dying about every half second or so.

In the end, he wins. Despite 8 thousand chances to die, he didn't. He lived. Now how unlikely is this? Why didn't he just die on his quest? You may answer it's good old "it's the way it is BECAUSE it's the way it is". But that's not the right answer.

The right answer is: There were thousends of thousands of young heroes who went out to destroy the evil overlord, but obviously the story is about the one who achieved his goals, because otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to write about it. To draw you a picture of this: Let's say you got millions of dangers on the way, for expample a hungry wolf, a poisonous snake, a crumbling cliff. And so on.

Hero #1 sets off and hey, he's lucky and passes Hungry Wolf while it's fast asleep. He accidentally steps onto the Poisonous Snakes head and gets away alive, but then he reaches for some stone at Crumbling Cliff and off he goes. Dead.

Hero #2 sets off but is somewhat unlucky as he runs straight into Hungry Wolf and gets eaten.

Hero #3 sets off but dies of lungcancer before even reaching Wolf or Snake.

[Put in Hero#4 - Hero#8394875436754348 here]

So HERE goes Hero#8394875436754349, and hey, THAT guy's a lucky bastard. Gets past thousands of dangers without taking any harm and kills the evil Overlord. Dammit, that guy's good!

Or wait - isn't he? Was he just lucky?

The reason why he managed to kill the Overlord is simple: Nature (you may call it Evolution) gave it a thousands or even a million tries. Even if try # 8 million doesn't work, maybe some future hero will achieve it. Nature will try on and on, regardless how many heroes it has to send out. And in the end, there will be one to manage it at least.
So this book you read about a hero who survives a thousand dangers is in fact not a book about a man with an unbevlievable amount of luck. It's just a book about the one man out of millions who did not fail where all the others failed.


I think you got the same type of "storytelling" on planet earth: There are millions (well, I think infinite, but let's put that aside for now) of planets in the universe that gave "Life" a try. They failed. But there are millions more on which project "Life" was a success. Now a few millions of planets gave project "Human" a try. Not all of them were successful.

Well, maybe there is only ONE planet that made it in the end (though I don't believe that).

But ONE is just enough to produce humans who will then go and ask: WHY the hell are we here? Why is everything JUST the way it is and not a tiny bit changed?

In fact, it is. But luckily not on this planet.
Posted By: Nems

evolution vs creation - 08/31/07 13:30

This is iteresting.

web page
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 08/31/07 22:02

Quote:

So HERE goes Hero#8394875436754349, and hey, THAT guy's a lucky bastard. Gets past thousands of dangers without taking any harm and kills the evil Overlord. Dammit, that guy's good!

Or wait - isn't he? Was he just lucky?

The reason why he managed to kill the Overlord is simple: Nature (you may call it Evolution) gave it a thousands or even a million tries. Even if try # 8 million doesn't work, maybe some future hero will achieve it. Nature will try on and on, regardless how many heroes it has to send out. And in the end, there will be one to manage it at least.
So this book you read about a hero who survives a thousand dangers is in fact not a book about a man with an unbevlievable amount of luck. It's just a book about the one man out of millions who did not fail where all the others failed.




That's often what people forget about in REAL LIFE, when it comes to actually being born, we were all winners, it was the same struggle of life, but on a entirely different level, in a different environment ... do you have any idea how many sperms didn't make it? Well, if that's indicative for the chance for every individual of 'us' being alive right now, then we must be either very lucky or we simply were the most fit. Usually the 'extremely lucky' ones don't last very long in this "real" world where we are now, since you'll have to be fit enough to be able to deal with the higher difficultly of survival in this next level (compared to your mothers 'womb' that is)..

Cheers
Posted By: Arathas

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 09/14/07 10:13

Quote:


when it comes to actually being born, we were all winners




That's true, but then again, you find yourself permanently wondering why the hell this damn stupid person you have to deal with did make it. There's so many STUPID people on earth that you have to wonder if all the other sperms would have been equally stupid ...
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science vs Wack Jobs - 05/22/08 14:02

Quote:
That's true, but then again, you find yourself permanently wondering why the hell this damn stupid person you have to deal with did make it. There's so many STUPID people on earth that you have to wonder if all the other sperms would have been equally stupid ... smirk


There definitely could have been changes, but yeah I guess we have to learn to live with it without going postal. wink

Sometimes children are pretty much predestined to not become very smart because both their parents weren't very smart or think of situations like children born from incestuous relationships and so on. Still, it's in neither case guaranteed that the children inevitably will become stupid.

By the way, for those people that still demand half-monkeys, fish-people and what not for proof of evolution, I'd recommend reading; Shubin's "Your inner fish". It was written in 2008 and is both interesting and a good read.
Posted By: Roel

Re: Science and Creation - 06/12/08 11:59

creationists believe the earth is 6000 years old, because when the bible says the word day, the think it is a real day(I DONT EXACTLY KNOW HOW IT IS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH,I ONLY KNOW ABOUT THE DUTCH BIBLE)

This is not true.
There is also written that a day can be 1000 years.
Another important thing is that this is a issue of translation the bible.
In the original language, the word day can mean a Time period, even a long time.

Sorry for my bad english!
Posted By: Impaler

What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/12/08 12:00

I am impressed that this thread has gone so far; it's good for people to actually think about these issues rather than accept the standard belief without thinking about it.

First of all, there are a huge number of reasons why life could not have originated on earth by natural occurrences.

1.) The Urey-Miller experiment: This experiment was very strong evidence against evolution 50 years ago, but is still being quoted in text books today as the origin of life.
The aim of the experiment was to be able to create extremely simple amino acids from a mixture of gases and an electrical spark, supposedly similar to the atmosphere of a "Primitive earth". The only problem is that to create these simple acids, hydrogen must be present in the mixture. Is there any hydrogen in earth's lower atmosphere, where there happens to be lightning? I don't think so. Being the lightest existing element, it will be sitting on top of all those other gases, on the edge of space.

2.)Lets just pretend that there is hydrogen in earth's lower atmosphere and an amino acid happens to form. What then? There are 22 amino acids used to make proteins in a living cell, and this experiment managed to produce two or three. A protein, by the way, is nothing compared to a cell. It is a building block of cell components, and many, many cell components must make up a single cell. DNA is totally out of the question: You need this monster to even make proteins, and it is composed of tens to hundreds of millions of nucleotides, all in the glitch free "programming" to construct the basic components of a cell. No matter how hard for how long you try, you will never arrive at DNA by chance with a couple of amino acids.

3.) The flagellum on a bacterium is composed of 50 parts that work together like an electric motor: if just one of them is out of place, the bacteria will not have propulsion. This in itself is massive proof against evolution: if this device was built up by natural selection, how was a non-functioning appendage on the back of the bacterium favoured by natural selection over the “millions of years” that it took to perfect it? Wouldn’t these bacteria have the disadvantage of extra drag and weight that would impair the cell, and cause it to die? Also, the flagellum’s “motor” is made up of parts that are all different. The cell wasn’t manufacturing these parts by chance, they were clearly part of a greater intelligence.

4.) The bombardier beetle: This is probably an overused example, but it is an essential fact: The bombardier beetle could not have evolved it’s combination of reactive chemicals without destroying itself; not only are there two separated reactive chemicals within it’s body, but it also has suppressant chemicals to stop these reactants from blowing it up. How all these could have possibly evolved at any early advantage to the organism is anybody’s guess.

I can quote more to you if you want them, but right now I have just finished my final exams and don’t have much motivation to do more essay writing. And by the way, if the 6000 years belief is mere sentimentalism, what does that make evolution? An attempt to escape from God, at the expense of rational thinking.

Now you can all tell me why I'm wrong smile
Posted By: Roel

Re: Science and Creation - 06/12/08 12:08

That are real strong arguments

In that experiment you talked about, when it would happen in reality, where would the sceintists be to add all the elements, electricity, light etc?
Posted By: Impaler

Re: Science and Creation - 06/12/08 12:09

Roel,
I believe that the Hebrew term used in Genesis can only be interpreted as a literal day, and there is very little point in expanding that by multiples of 1000; If God can create the universe in 1000 X 6 days, why not make it six?
He is infinitely powerful...so why should we assume that he took such a long time? If you believe that God exists and created the Universe, you might as well take His Word for it.

but I guess we're not supposed to talk about the bible, hey? grin
Posted By: Lukas

Re: Science and Creation - 06/12/08 15:29

Bible says that god created the plants before he created the sun. If that was true, all plants would be dead and without plants we would be dead. That is a much stronger argument than speculations that amino acids couldn't be orginated by natural occurrences, Impaler.
If that doesn't convince you, maybe because you think that it needn't be like the Bible says, then just look at human anatomy. We have remains of a tail!

I hate creatonism!
Posted By: JibbSmart

Re: Science and Creation - 06/12/08 22:42

what about right in the beginning: "let there be light!"? God was illuminating everything before He began the rest of the creation.

plants needn't die.

julz
Posted By: Impaler

Re: Science and Creation - 06/13/08 01:06

Lukas,
the coccyx is far from being a "vestigial tail". It is clear evidence for design: not only is it an anchor point for nine vital muscles (including the Gluteus Maximus, the largest muscle in the body), but it also provides cushioning when you sit down. Without a cocyyx, you would not even be able to defecate. Do you expect the spinal column to be cut straight off at the sacrum? No, it must taper down to a point to allow maximum strength of conection to the pelvis while maximizing space to be used by the internal organs.

Quote:

I hate creatonism!


Many people have this attitude towards creationism, because it implies that there is a God. To some, this is so frightening that they turn to evolution for answers. Denying God's existence doesn't make Him any less real, and I can't imagine it would make Him that happy, either.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Science and Creation - 06/13/08 02:05

Quote:
but it also provides cushioning when you sit down.
ya, it actually gives in as the weight is applied to it, and acts as a shock absorber.

Quote:
not only is it an anchor point for nine vital muscles (including the Gluteus Maximus
gluteus maximus, levator ani, coccygeus are the ones I know of,but there probably is more, you need the last two muscles in order to defecate.
Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Science and Creation - 06/13/08 09:36

If you believe in a Designer / Creator / God then you could ask yourself why He made us such a weak creature. Compared to animals we are slow runners with only few endurance, we dont have good weapons like claws, tusks, teeth or horns. We are not very strong nor big. We cannot fly and we swim very slow.

We are just a medium being with some more brain cells. We are arrogant and ignorant although we are just a naked ape, nothing more, a mammal without decent fur. Our brain helped to destroy the nature, to enslave animals or other humans and to spread like a Virus around this world. We double our numbers every 40 years. Soon we dont have enough water to drink nor enough food to eat.

This is a simple result of domination, random evolution and of our very overestimated so called "intelligence" that is still lead by natural urges.

If that would be a plan from a Designer then He/he/She/she must have a really bad sense of humor.
Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/13/08 10:01

Originally Posted By: Impaler
1.) The Urey-Miller experiment: This experiment was very strong evidence ...


This sounds very contrary to me and does not convince or prove anything. I write it with simple words:

You say that this single experiment failed so you say it is a proof that evolution did not happen.

I try to talk the same way like you now: "I once tried to pray to God and got no response. So God does not exist."

I think you and I probably took the wrong approch here wink
The induction to draw a conclusion from only one little experiment is very dangerous.
Posted By: Lukas

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/13/08 11:27

Who created God?
Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/13/08 13:09

Originally Posted By: Lukas
Who created God?


The Overloard created the Loard. And the Over-Overloard created the Overloard. There is always a bigger fish in the sea smile
Posted By: Tobias

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/13/08 14:11

Originally Posted By: Impaler
The Urey-Miller experiment: This experiment was very strong evidence against evolution 50 years ago, but is still being quoted in text books today as the origin of life.
The aim of the experiment was to be able to create extremely simple amino acids from a mixture of gases and an electrical spark, supposedly similar to the atmosphere of a "Primitive earth". The only problem is that to create these simple acids, hydrogen must be present in the mixture. Is there any hydrogen in earth's lower atmosphere, where there happens to be lightning? I don't think so. Being the lightest existing element, it will be sitting on top of all those other gases, on the edge of space.

Hydrogen is contained not only in water vapor but also in almost all gases of the early atmosphere, like ammonia and methane from volcanoes. All those gases were available in the lower atmosphere of course.

Urey-Miller just used the gas mix of which the lower earth atmosphere was assumed to consist of, 4.5 billion years ago.

Originally Posted By: Impaler
Lets just pretend that there is hydrogen in earth's lower atmosphere and an amino acid happens to form.

No need to pretend it, that was just what the Urey-Miller experiment successfully proved.

Originally Posted By: Impaler
What then? There are 22 amino acids used to make proteins in a living cell, and this experiment managed to produce two or three. A protein, by the way, is nothing compared to a cell. It is a building block of cell components, and many, many cell components must make up a single cell. DNA is totally out of the question: You need this monster to even make proteins, and it is composed of tens to hundreds of millions of nucleotides, all in the glitch free "programming" to construct the basic components of a cell. No matter how hard for how long you try, you will never arrive at DNA by chance with a couple of amino acids.

This is a misunderstanding of "arrive at DNA". The life did not start with DNA at all, it started with self organization of very few amino acids like those produced by Urey-Miller experiment.

Originally Posted By: Impaler
The flagellum on a bacterium is composed of 50 parts that work together like an electric motor: if just one of them is out of place, the bacteria will not have propulsion. This in itself is massive proof against evolution: if this device was built up by natural selection, how was a non-functioning appendage on the back of the bacterium favoured by natural selection over the “millions of years” that it took to perfect it?

This question is asked by creationists all the time and patiently answered by scientists also all the time. smile You just need to read their answers, also about the bombardier beetle, look here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

and here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html


Nobody has yet found anything which would disprove evolution, but all the time more and more things are found that are evidence that evolution really happened. God made us, but he used evolution! smile
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/13/08 21:47

Quote:

you will never arrive at DNA by chance with a couple of amino acids


Even though I am not definitly a creationist it is a matter of fact that even the simplest organism capable of reproducing itself is far away to complex to assume that it was the result of the mere chance

Evolution by itsself is deterministic but such basic organism is a necessary starting point
This is still a mistery
I am confident that sooner or later science will find an explanation but it is just an emotional issue same as the faith in God

Quote:

The flagellum on a bacterium is composed of 50 parts that work together ...


As someone else said this is a popular but false creationist claim
The trick is to assume that the flagellum has been designed from the very beginning as a...flagellum
Maybe it was just a simple and even useless protuberance
The organism evolved thanks to other usefull features but since it was fitted also with this protuberance also the protuberance has been transmitted to his sons
Or maybe it was of some use , for example , as a sort of "anchor" or as a " radiator" to cool down the body
Some hundred years later , by chance, this protuberance started moving and it turned into a much more useful locomotion tool




Posted By: Impaler

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/14/08 05:36

Machinery_Frank,
I would like to remind you that many of us creationists believe that humans were originally created much more physically capable than we are today. The fact that we are no longer in this state is due to sin: we rebelled against God's perfect plan for the world, and as a result we are no longer within his perfect design. The decay of the human body is shown in Genesis, as lifespans gradually decreased until we end up with what we have today: The typical human who lives to just 75 years of age.
The same goes for our mental state; we were not always murderous, destroying, ignorant creatures, but when we rejected God, we became everything He isn't.
You are right about the Urey-Miller experiment: It does not prove that life could not have arisen by chance. However it does prove that it could not have come about by that process, and that is the only theory that I know of (besides from outer space, but that just moves the problem to space, doesn't it?)
Also, the amino acids will not form in the presence of oxygen, and oxygen is just as much a part of water vapour as hydrogen is, Tobias. Also, the hydrogen used in the experiment was pure H2, and it was necessary in that form, as other compounds with hydrogen were present already (such as CH4 and NH3)
Lukas, by asking "who created God?", you leave yourself exposed to questions such as "where did that superdense atom that caused the big bang come from?". I do however have an answer: No-one. God is outside of time, therefore He is not bound to time-based laws. He did not need to be created, because He is the creator, and created time itself. He is infinite in every respect, including time. He was around "before" time was.

Quote:

This is a misunderstanding of "arrive at DNA". The life did not start with DNA at all, it started with self organization of very few amino acids like those produced by Urey-Miller experiment.


if something doesn't have DNA, it cannot reproduce
To be alive, an organism(or species of organism) must be capable of reproducing
If it cannot reproduce it is not alive
therefore, if it doesn't have DNA, it is not alive.

QED

Just out of curiosity, I would like to see a detailed progression from those supposed initial amino acids to the first cells or living organisms.
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/14/08 06:59

Originally Posted By: Impaler

many of us creationists believe that humans were originally created much more physically capable than we are today. The fact that we are no longer in this state is due to sin:


In other words
Those who committed the sin remained more or less physically capable people while we , 6000 thousand years later, must die for cancer because of their sin

A strange sense of justice
Posted By: Impaler

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/14/08 07:05

But are you sinning any less than them?
Posted By: pararealist

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/14/08 07:11

Once i used to believe in god, as i was brought up to do so.
It all seemed to make sense, until i started studying world history.
Then i realised that the bible was just a history book, (incomplete at that)
and written some 30,000 years ago in humankinds history, (not 3000).

Every following generation has taken these stories and modified them for their
generation. So from the original names new names appeared for the characters and cities and places.

My belief NOW at this time (this is no guarantee that it is right) but it is what i believe due to my search for knowledge in mankinds history.

Some 50000 years ago, aliens landed on Earth. A certain faction of them started to genetically manipulate the human who was found on this planet. The first human was made not to reproduce, but had all the knowledge of it's (creator).

It must have become dangerous to the manters when the slacve had the same knowledge.

So a new human was created, this time with lesser knowledge and being able to reproduce. In time the humans outnumbered the aliens. Some of the aliens () wanted to teach the humans, but it was forbidden, but they did anyway, and the first revolution took place. The humans were then thrown out of the main. "garden?".


In time the Lemurian culture appeared. Soon there was division among the aliens. This resulted in a new colony being developed, Atlantis. The humans were used as slaves (as they still are today). The Atlanteans basically believed in fittest of the fittest survive.
The Lemurians were the help and love thy nieghbor type.

In time there was a war, and the forbidden weapon was used by the Atlanteans. Yes people, the atom bomb. They had this weapon for so long, but it was forbidden to ever use it, they had probably forgot why.
Anyway it destroyed both civilisations. (so called myth of atlantis).

Later a new civilisation emerged Sumer. They had all the knowledge stored so the renewal of the civilisation was not too hard. From Sumer came Egypt ruled by a son and Indus Valley ruled by a daughter of the king in Sumer.

So Egypt and Indus Valley tried to steal the stored knowledge from Sumer and soon there was all out war again. The atom bomb that landed on sumer also almost completely destroyed the indus valley and egypt by radiation.

Today the atlanteans have the upper hand, and again used an atomic bomb on Hiroshimo. They practice and orchestrate genocide on whole countries they genetically assume to be of lemurian descent.

And all the time they keep the most of the masses subdued by religion, although this has a nother purpose.

They are waiting for their king to re-appear, they know exactly when and are preparing, for every time the king comes there is catastrophe on earth. sometimes less sometimes great, so they are carrying mankinds knowledge up to the space station, and they intend to try and save the elite there untill they can return to earth, knowledge is also being buried underground.

They know of the recurring catastrophes thet earth endures, this is why prophesy and such is usually so accurate, for these things are recurring about every 3600 years.

Anyway there is enough information there for one to carefully piece some sort of theory togrther.

JUST remember, There is no proof that ANY of it is right, but what else do we have but our analytical brain to try and decipher the truths (plural) from what wre know and discover, and even then no two people will ever see the same, for each mind is different.

So now i say i worship no god or man. That is my philosopy. For if you have a god or king or hierachy, then you need lesser people or slaves to look up to this god, king president, prime minister etc.

TIME for mankind to remove all gods and kings etc and try to make this planet united, for what is to come in the near future.

There will be othere who come to earth, and we will have to defend earth, if we are not united as Earthpeople, no more nations as such, we will be easilly defeated.

My view - there will probably be opposing views, but that is good, for when one stops thinking and finding things out for themselves, instead of just taking it from out parents and their parents because "it has always been so", one might as well bury their head in the sand.

Peace humankind.
Posted By: Tobias

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/14/08 07:53

Originally Posted By: Impaler
You are right about the Urey-Miller experiment: It does not prove that life could not have arisen by chance. However it does prove that it could not have come about by that process, and that is the only theory that I know of (besides from outer space, but that just moves the problem to space, doesn't it?)

Actually as far as I know there are about 10 different plausible theories about the origin of life. Look here:

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

Science at the moment does not know which of the 10 is right, if any. Thats still one of the gaps in our knowledge but does not mean that God sits in all those gaps. If He did, he would become smaller and smaller as our knowledge grows and the gaps are getting smaller and smaller. Thats why I do not believe that you can find God in gaps, as Creationists think.

Originally Posted By: Impaler
Also, the amino acids will not form in the presence of oxygen, and oxygen is just as much a part of water vapour as hydrogen is, Tobias.

Thats a misunderstanding, Impaler. Amino acids will form in the presence of water vapor. Only pure oxygen O2 or O3 can prevent the forming of long amino chains, but pure oxygen was not present in the early atmosphere.
Posted By: Impaler

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/14/08 09:38

Yes, I had a look at that Wikipedia page and I see 5 models for the formation of life, all of which involve either the synthesis of compounds by random chance or some kind of pre-life "natural selection". Frankly I found the Urey-Miller experiment the most convincing. How you can say that NH3 is hydrogen but H20 is not oxygen makes no sense to me.

Quote:

Pure oxygen was not present in the early atmosphere.


That is an absurd thing to say. Just take a look at this page: Miller-Urey experiment

The existence of oxygen in a "primitive atmosphere" is controverial. To dismiss it as absent is to evade the argument.

By the way, I am not trying to prove God's existence by showing the shortcomings of evolution. I am trying to demonstrate that creationism is a plausible theory, and that belief in God's existence does not mean belief in an un-scientific and old-fashioned theory. Evolution is a theory, not a law, and it is important that people know this.
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/14/08 12:02

Originally Posted By: Impaler
But are you sinning any less than them?


At least I would expect to deserve to have the same chances as Adam and Eve
We got started as super men and super women , then step by step because of our sins...
Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/14/08 17:42

Originally Posted By: AlbertoT
Originally Posted By: Impaler
But are you sinning any less than them?


At least I would expect to deserve to have the same chances as Adam and Eve
We got started as super men and super women , then step by step because of our sins...


Sin
You said that God is almighty and knows everything. He rules over time and space. If all this applies then He must have realized the sinning from the beginning.

So why he offered the snake and the apple to Adam and Eve? He must have known that they will fail. He created them. He could have made them robust against sin. He could have made them that way that they dislike forbidden apples and don't want to talk with snakes.

But he did not. So the sin must have been an initial part of his design.

Punishment
If God already knew of his weak creatures and of the sin that will happen then he already knew that he will punish them with banning from paradise and with the flood and all that.

So why he designed us so weak to punish us? Is he an evil child? Does he like the punishments?
Very strange situation.
Posted By: Tobias

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/15/08 05:08

Originally Posted By: Machinery_Frank
So why he offered the snake and the apple to Adam and Eve? He must have known that they will fail. He created them. He could have made them robust against sin. He could have made them that way that they dislike forbidden apples and don't want to talk with snakes.

Well there are many, many interpretations to that story of the forbidden fruit. The most strange and nonsensical interpretation IMHO is the original sin idea, which is not originally Christian.

A better interpretation is that God made us with a free will, able to choose between good and evil. Free will makes only sense of course when everyone can choose for himself. Not Adams sin, but our own sins condemn us.
Posted By: Impaler

Not a theological discussion - 06/15/08 06:01

Everything God does will eventually result in greater glory for Him, and the redemption of mankind is that fulfillment. If you want more Christian, theological answers, read the Bible (more specifically the New Testament). It will tell you much better than I will, although I suppose this forum isn't even meant to be about the Bible.
Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Not a theological discussion - 06/15/08 11:06

Ok. Then it cannot be answered. The bible is a book about murder, sin, inbreeding, many story collected over a long period of time similar to stories of other religions.

It will not answer my questions. It will raise even more questions.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Not a theological discussion - 06/15/08 16:54

Originally Posted By: Impaler
Everything God does will eventually result in greater glory for Him, and the redemption of mankind is that fulfillment. If you want more Christian, theological answers, read the Bible (more specifically the New Testament). It will tell you much better than I will, although I suppose this forum isn't even meant to be about the Bible.


How do you know everything God does will eventually result in 'greater glory for Him' (whatever that means, please explain) ????

I totally agree with Frank here, if you're talking about looking for answers, then the Bible only raises more questions for me as well...
Posted By: Hand_Of_Law

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 06/16/08 16:53

Originally Posted By: Impaler

By the way, I am not trying to prove God's existence by showing the shortcomings of evolution. I am trying to demonstrate that creationism is a plausible theory, and that belief in God's existence does not mean belief in an un-scientific and old-fashioned theory. Evolution is a theory, not a law, and it is important that people know this.

Could you describe exactly the theory of creationism you find plausible, and how it describes the origins of the universe, life and speciation on a scientific way ?
Posted By: cro_games

Re: Science and Creation - 08/30/08 19:48

interesting...
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: What the evolutionists havn't mentioned so far - 08/31/08 09:15

Originally Posted By: Hand_Of_Law
[quote=Impaler]Could you describe exactly the theory of creationism you find plausible, and how it describes the origins of the universe, life and speciation on a scientific way ?


If you're interested in finding out a little bit more about that, I recommend watching the Zeitgeist movie. You will probably find the part about religions quite interesting.

But... the only thing 'scientific' about creationism and the stories in the bible, is how it all literally refers to astronomic events. It's quite likely the reason why so many of the religious center stories share almost all the details.

I have to add that the Zeitgeist movie isn't flawless, but it does a good job most of the time.
Posted By: pararealist

Re: Science and Creation - 09/09/08 14:49

QUOTE:if the Bible is wrong, then there is no God, no Jesus, and no immortality in Heaven. Man dies and that's it. To many people this is unacceptable, and would cause insanity.

Why would the bible being wrong mean that there is no immortality?
Since having an OBE, i am convinced that we do not "die" when we lose our body,
so maybe we continue on in a different form.
(A previous god, bible believer).
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Science and Creation - 09/09/08 14:52

Originally Posted By: pararealist
QUOTE:if the Bible is wrong, then there is no God, no Jesus, and no immortality in Heaven. Man dies and that's it. To many people this is unacceptable, and would cause insanity.

Why would the bible being wrong mean that there is no immortality


You're proving the point made in the statement actually... It's difficult to accept that there will be nothing after you die.

Cheers
Posted By: delerna

Re: Science and Creation - 04/03/09 21:44

QUOTE
Sin
You said that God is almighty and knows everything. He rules over time and space. If all this applies then He must have realized the sinning from the beginning.

So why he offered the snake and the apple to Adam and Eve? He must have known that they will fail. He created them. He could have made them robust against sin. He could have made them that way that they dislike forbidden apples and don't want to talk with snakes.

But he did not. So the sin must have been an initial part of his design.
/QUOTE

Well that's one way to look at it, if you must.

The way I see it is that we were made in the image of our creator.
Among other things, this meant we would have a strong desire to create
as he does, and in order to do that effectively we would need to have free will.

Those two characteristics would enable us to extend the garden to cover the earth. However, in doing that he did not relinquish authority to decide what is good and what is bad to us. Obedience to the restriction signified our acceptance of his authority. Taking the forbidden fruit is our attempt at usurping Gods authority. The disatrous results of that usurption are obvious to anyone who wants to look at the world realistically.

I know this is not scientific....but neither is the question.
Posted By: EvilSOB

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/09 11:08

Just to throw my two cents in, forgive me for not supplying the original names of any quotes.

Quote:
if the Bible is wrong, then there is no God, no Jesus, and no immortality in Heaven. Man dies and that's it. To many people this is unacceptable, and would cause insanity.
Assuming the the Bible is wrong, how does this PROVE there is no God, Jesus, and immortality?
The Bible may be chock full of incorrectness, but still contain SOME truth.
If a good book cant PROVE they DO exist, how can a bad book prove they DONT?


Quote:
So why he offered the snake and the apple to Adam and Eve? He must have known that they will fail. He created them. He could have made them robust against sin. He could have made them that way that they dislike forbidden apples and don't want to talk with snakes.
By creating them robust against evil, he would have had to limit or remove free-will.
Just because someone is CAPABLE of commiting sin, doesnt mean they MUST.
Do YOU commit a sin EVERY time you see the opportunity to do so, cause I dont,
and I aint no saint. (PS Im not even a "believer" in the truest sense)

Another thought, most of the time when people are creating some'thing', they will use tools.
Cant God have created a tool called 'Evolution' to simplify his works, and avoid all that
messing about concentrating on every single species?
Posted By: Quad

Re: Science and Creation - 04/04/09 23:14

Bible is wrong in some parts, this is what we believe in Islam.God sent another Messenger because the previous messages were altered/modified in some human will.
(though im not religious and dont know the religion in depth...)

I didnt really completely read Bible nor Quran, but from what i see understanding and definition of God is both similiar and slightly diffrent. But in both of the religions the definition of the God is impossible in this universe.This is mostly the main cause people not believing God. Imposiblity of God. And again according to our belief the definition of God is not exactly true in current Bible.

[begining from this part i am talking from Islam aspect] But God doesnt live in this universe nor God has a life.Life,death etc. is created by God and is something that humans are bound to, not God. God is eternal. But this universe is not eternal, has a begining and sure will have an end. All universe is created by God, and no, he didn't created evolution to make His works easier. (Altough i say "His", God doesnt have a gender either.)
When people try to understand and concive an image of the God in their mind, with their limited thinking and imagination, they come to the result that God is impossible.(Plus they always try to imagine God as human-like thing which makes it harder.)Limited thinking? Ideas, possiblities and thinking are limited to all knowledge we got, and the maximum knowledge we can get is the all knowledge in total in this universe. And this knowledge is not enough to assamble a complete image of the God in limited human mind.(by image i dont mean just the apperance of God but also his capabilites of doing things.). Just like no one can really imagine eternality. (Yeah you can say that no begining-no end, but no real image, just an explanation.)

Anything on this universe(contatining other dimensions) can not create a single atom, nor can completely destroy it. We can only convert them to diffrent types of existence but cannot create a new one from nothing, and we cant make an existing thing to not to exist. The capability of "creating" is exclusive to God.

First, in Islam, Jesus is not a God nor son of the God. He is the messenger of the God, just like Moses,Muhammed,David,Noah,Lot.....

Definition of God is very detailed but basically, He is not born,not given birth,He is immortal and eternal. He has full control over all universe,and created it.
God is not dependant on time, time is just another thing in this universe created by God. And God doesn't get tired, He is completely free from human needs. Things like hunger,boredom,getting tired are human things which is God not bound to.

Creation of the human race is similiar in both religions, Adam and Eve, apple and that kind of stuff. The existance of the Satan is about same time, but thats another story, you can read Quran for this.

But another question rises, "ok, then God creates/controls everything then why we are here and living our time, God control's us right? Why don't He just send us to heaven or hell and remove the ability to questioning reasons of being in hell?". Well, this is a complicated part, before getting answer for this you have to find a lot answers for other questions, but answer is that God gave humans free will. Altough we have free will and can decide which way we go, God knows which one you choose since He is not bound to time. Being time independent is another thing that limited human mind can accept easily.

About spirit, actually scincefic disciplines like para-physcology points existence of such thing you have to experince yourself to believe. This part is where i became a believer. But i am not gonna talk about this long stroy either. But matter itself is does not complete a human. there must be an external power/being.

[For science vs religion part]
I don't know about Christianity but science and relegion is not opposite things. Islam itself encourages people to learn/make/spread/research/discover science. And there is no single conflict between Quran and science. You can't solely define evolution as scince since it's a theory and yet to be proved. There is a lot of parts that evolution and Darwin himself accepts but can't explain with or fit in the theory. There are scientific facts like bigbang cannot explained without existance of outer power(God). God is not logical? "Nothing exploded for no reason and created everything" is not very logical either.Ok yeah this questions used alot against atheism and evolution but there are another facts tho. Such things like bingbang is evidence to existance of "Outer Power". In fact all that universe and beatifully harmonic systems in universe is sings of a "Outher Power that is not Mindless".

i talk too much again.

this is sorta video i like about finding God(english video, title says, Story of Australian Man Becoming Muslim.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC4Lsfutx38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qSuJyhiboI

sorry for being off topic mostly, if i distrub/harass anyone this can be deleted.


Posted By: delerna

Re: Science and Creation - 04/05/09 00:21

Quadraxas
You don't talk too much.....well said.
Don't agree with all you said but in essentials, yes.
Posted By: PadMalcom

Re: Science and Creation - 10/23/09 09:26

In my eyes the bible has more or less a learning and a metaphorical character than a historical one. If you see Eve and Adam, for instance, several priests will admit that one has to regard it as analogy but as the true development of mankind. The reason for this exemplary story is that Christians should learn to act after the will of god.
Same holds for a lot of other stories, too: Noah, Jonas, ...

In my personal opinion I believe in natural science and in the slow evolution of mankind without any outer influence. But nevertheless, the bible, the quran, ... act as great tools to communicate and teach social values!

In contrast to my belief I wish we were brought here by aliens. This would make science and life more interesting laugh
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: Science and Creation - 08/23/10 18:04

Originally Posted By: Quadraxas


Anything on this universe(contatining other dimensions) can not create a single atom, nor can completely destroy it. We can only convert them to diffrent types of existence but cannot create a new one from nothing, and we cant make an existing thing to not to exist. The capability of "creating" is exclusive to God.



This is (has been) the main argument in favour of existence of God but modern Quantum Physics has ( seem to have ) razed it to the ground
According to the modern theory "something" must exist , the " non existance " is not possible
Read for example " The lightness of Being, Ether and the unification of forces " by the nobel price for Physics Frank Wilczek
You feed your super computer with all the available data, it runs for hours to solve the super complicated equations of modern nuclear physics , finally it spits out its sentence :

Vacuum can not exist , it would not be consistent with the theory

Of course the theory might be partially wrong but the above result is not due to prejudice of atheist scientists
Posted By: Michael_Schwarz

Re: Science and Creation - 08/23/10 18:10

Originally Posted By: AlbertoT
You feed your super computer with all the available data, it runs for hours to solve the super complicated equations of modern nuclear physics , finally it spits out its sentence :

Vacuum can not exist , it would not be consistent with the theory

Of course the theory might be partially wrong but the above result is not due to prejudice of atheist scientists


Of course, at this point Black Matter jumps in, which we don't yet know what it is. So there is still lots and lots of stuff to explore before we can give definite answers on things.
© 2024 lite-C Forums