|
3 registered members (frutza, Quad, AndrewAMD),
385
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69051
05/05/06 00:31
05/05/06 00:31
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
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.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/05/06 00:34.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69052
05/05/06 01:07
05/05/06 01:07
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
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.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69053
05/05/06 01:12
05/05/06 01:12
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
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
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69054
05/05/06 03:18
05/05/06 03:18
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
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.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/05/06 03:21.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69055
05/05/06 03:57
05/05/06 03:57
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
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?
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69056
05/05/06 04:19
05/05/06 04:19
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
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.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#69057
05/05/06 04:24
05/05/06 04:24
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
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.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69058
05/05/06 08:11
05/05/06 08:11
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
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!  )
|
|
|
A personal résumé
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69060
05/05/06 14:26
05/05/06 14:26
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
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.
|
|
|
|
