Things evolution can't explain

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/19/06 03:31

Agreed, I did mention one thing out of a list of about 13 things that was off topic. However, I'd assume that if his theory is scientific fact, it should be pretty easy to defend. And instead of spending an entire post on one sentence I wrote that was off topic, he could have responded to that and defended his theory. However, I posit that defending the theory isn't possible, and that's why he decided to focus on one sentence instead.

Lesson learned. I can't go off topic even one bit because evolutionists will cling to that instead of defending their theory.

I'm not trying to be condescending. We're just having fun here.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/19/06 03:54

In any case, regardless of who went off-topic, I do think the issue has some relevance to what we are discussing...

But anyway, Irish's main post has many, many points, and it's diffcult to address them all at once.

I'll look at some more of them though:

Quote:

How could sex possibly have evolved?

The fact is, this is null question, becuase it proceeds from the standpoint that sexual reproduction is the only way for organisms to reproduce. Clearly it's not, as many orgaims reproduce asexually, and many plants can do it both ways.

There is no reason that an organism couldn't have developed sexual reproduction while still being able to reproduce asexaully.

As far the advantages of sexual reproduction, the answer is clear: mixig the genes of two parents creates more genetically diverse organisms, and mitigates most genetic diseases, while still allowing for mutaion to create new variations.

Therefore a better question would be: how could sexual reproduction have NOT evolved?

Quote:

Evolution is the only real 'god of the gaps.' In fact, the entire theory is based on gaps. Animals appear with no ancestor, and then disappear.

This is simply not factual. The fossil record is full of ancestral or transitional forms, although you CHOOSE not to accept them (just not believing somehting doesnt prove it wrong). Look at Homo Erectus for example.. while clearly a different species from Homo Sapiens, the relationship is too striking to be coincidence. If gaps exist it's because we havent filled them in with new fossil evidence, not because it doesnt exist.

Clearly, evolution does not proceed according to a set timetable, and there are are indeed quick jumps fomr form to form, for whatever reason. And since the chances of any one individual being fossilized is very slim, if a species evolves past a certain form quickly, there are proportionally fewer chances of one being preserved.

This "gap" kind of arguement is among the weakest that can be brought.

Quote:

Biogenesis. Where's the evidence? Speculation is fun. I'd love to know what its like to be superman...but I don't think I'm going to abuse science to convince everyone that I could be superman.

I dont understand this one at all...what does biogenesis have to do with superman?

The fact is biogenesis has two distinct meanings. One is the simple definition of creating life from life, as occurs in the reproduction of an organism. The other is th more abstract; the theory that life can ONLY arise from other life--the contrary theory being abiogenesis; the theory that life can someitmes arise fomr non-life.

Most modern scientists believe that abiogenesis is possible. But it has little to do with the origin of the species through natural selection. This is a quesition that may or may not be ultimately resolved, and it is of philosophical or academic interest, but may play little part in our understanding of the processes of evolutiojn of already living organisms.

Quote:

Creative mutations. I've shown you that every known mutation is utterly useless to the theory of evolution. Why haven't we seen an information-increasing mutation yet? Speculation on the possibility of information increasing mutations is great, but should be called speculation. Not science.

In fact you have shown no such thing. While you may delude yourself into beliveing it, most of us are not se easliy fooled. While there are indee insertions and adiitions in the genetic code, there dont even need to be for evlotuoin to proceed. This is because even a deletion or a rearranging of the sequance can have effects on the evetual outcome... therefore any change is novel, and can have evolutionary impact.

Quote:

Evolutionists only believe in evolution because they cannot believe in God. God has performed bigger miracles than evolution before, so it really isn't that hard to believe that God used evolution to create if need be.

While MANY poeple who accept evolution also believe in god, this has no bearing on wether evolution is true or not, and is clearly a pedestrian arguement that should have been left at home.

Quote:

Our moon is escaping and our sun is shrinking. Both give much younger ages for the universe.

uhh... not sure how to respond here. What astronomy textbook have you been reading?

Quote:

Lizards to mammals. When did non-breasts turn into breasts,

Lizards didnt turn into mammals. Please please learn some of the BASIC science here before attempting to argue against the theory.

Perhaps there is no reason for me to take this seriously, when you dont put any effort into actually learning the facts.

However, this is an old trick question, "what came first: the chicken or the egg?".

The answer is your word for chicken has not been defined, so there is no answer. This applies to many of your points, like the probblem of haert evolution, eye evolution, sex, etc, etc. ad infinitum. It comes from a basic lack of understanding of how logic, language, and abstract thinking deal with concrete things in the real world.

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

I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, or to destroy your sense of self or well-being. Evolutionary theory--and science in general--is really about liberating man from ignorance, superstition, and fear of the dark unknown, based on the only tools we have; the ability to observe the world, and draw conclusions from that.

you may have been LED to believe that evolution disproves the existence of god, but the fact is it doesnt. While Darwin himself lost his faith in a god, at least a benevolent god, he didnt intend to destroy that faith for others.

You are still young, and obviously bright and curious. But I must tell you there comes a time when you simply cannot answer all questions with "common-sense" logic, or "common knoweledge" that your parents or church leader may teach you.

You are best advised to seek to the opinions of experts who have actually studied these things at length. Learn the facts, dont just recycle factoids from propaganda, or rehash ancient arguements that have long since been been dealt with.

I am no expert, but I have read a great deal on the natural sciences and have observed ecosystems in many parts of the world, including tropical forests, coral reefs, mountains, deserts, etc. There is a lot out there in the world that is far more interesting than worrying about whether God kept your family together, or what happens to you after you die. Darwin didnt reach his conclusions simply by sitting around in his dreary home brooding, he went out and saw things as they are, not as you want them to be, or as you have heard they are supposed to be.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/19/06 05:37

Quote:

The fact is, this is null question, becuase it proceeds from the standpoint that sexual reproduction is the only way for organisms to reproduce. Clearly it's not, as many orgaims reproduce asexually, and many plants can do it both ways.

No, this is proceeding from the standpoint that some organisms sexually reproduce.

Quote:

There is no reason that an organism couldn't have developed sexual reproduction while still being able to reproduce asexaully.

What reason would an organism have to evolve sexual reproduction when asexual reproduction is much more efficient?

Quote:

As far the advantages of sexual reproduction, the answer is clear: mixig the genes of two parents creates more genetically diverse organisms, and mitigates most genetic diseases, while still allowing for mutaion to create new variations.

Therefore a better question would be: how could sexual reproduction have NOT evolved?

Ok, so let's say that an asexually reproducing flatworm evolved into a sexually reproducing flat worm. So it evolves a male reproductive organ (MRO). What does it mate with? Let's say it evolves a female reproductive organ (FRO), what does it mate with?

Let's say by some miracle, one evolves male and one evolves female. What are the chances that they'll end up right by each other, as well as having the inclination to mate?

In the transition leading up to working reproductive organs, what are the chances that non-working reproductive organs are going to be useful.

There are numerous changes that must take place in order for sexual reproduction to work. The physical organs not only have to slowly evolve (what is the selective advantage in the meantime?), but they have to evolve to the right size. Then the creature has to produce 'glands' that produce the reproductive cells (two different kinds). Then the correct pathways for the reproductive cells to travel has to develop. Then the hormones must be produced that make the animal not only want to have sex, but that give it the ability to have sex. Then, the brain has to evolve to control the entire process. The correct muscles and blood pathways (or whatever controls the organs) have to be in place. And MOST important of all: the genetic code has to be rewritten to account for the fact that the creature is developing from sex cells.

That's a whole lot of baggage, when its so much easier to just reproduce asexually. Furthermore, just about none of those things are useful without the others. Third of all, the chances of this happening are astronomical, even excluding the impossibility of creative mutations.

Quote:

The fossil record is full of ancestral or transitional forms

There are no transitional forms. Evolutionists admitted this when they came up with 'punctuated equilibrium'. If there is a transitional form, I'd love to know what it is.

Homo erectus? The main reason it was thought to be below human was because of its brain size, which we later discovered was within the range of the average european (that's not meant to be an insult, aborigines also have small brains, but are no less intelligent).

Quote:

I dont understand this one at all...what does biogenesis have to do with superman?

Its a metaphor. Its meant to be a parallel to the teaching of abiogenesis as fact in schools, when there's absolutely no evidence for it. Its just as ridiculous as using science to speculate on what it would be like to be superman. There's no point in abusing science to speculate on either of them, because neither of them will ever happen.

Quote:

The fact is biogenesis has two distinct meanings. One is the simple definition of creating life from life, as occurs in the reproduction of an organism. The other is th more abstract; the theory that life can ONLY arise from other life--the contrary theory being abiogenesis; the theory that life can someitmes arise fomr non-life.

Most modern scientists believe that abiogenesis is possible. But it has little to do with the origin of the species through natural selection. This is a quesition that may or may not be ultimately resolved, and it is of philosophical or academic interest, but may play little part in our understanding of the processes of evolutiojn of already living organisms.

A silent admission that there is no evidence.

Quote:

In fact you have shown no such thing. While you may delude yourself into beliveing it, most of us are not se easliy fooled. While there are indee insertions and adiitions in the genetic code, there dont even need to be for evlotuoin to proceed. This is because even a deletion or a rearranging of the sequance can have effects on the evetual outcome... therefore any change is novel, and can have evolutionary impact.

Yeah, sickle cell anemia is a very novel change. The statement that any change is simply change is more of a reflection of your relativistic view of the world than of the actual scientific evidence.

Even in your trophy example of delta 32, it was caused by the deletion of base pairs. Its hard to imagine the deletion of data writing anything new.

Quote:

While MANY poeple who accept evolution also believe in god, this has no bearing on wether evolution is true or not, and is clearly a pedestrian arguement that should have been left at home.

That was my point. Religious folks have no problem believing evolution. Atheistic evolutionists will never compromise, because they refuse to believe in God. They will rationalize their theory against all scientific evidence, because its the only chance they have to keep God out of nature.

Quote:

uhh... not sure how to respond here. What astronomy textbook have you been reading?

The sun really isn't a good argument. The debate isn't resolved yet.

I don't want to restate all the garbage on the escaping moon. Talk origins has a rebuttle to it, but another website goes more in depth, and resolves the problem of a changing escape velocity. The moon, at this time is leaving orbit at a rate of about 4 cm or about 1.5 inches per year.

http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v2i2f.htm
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v4i2f.htm
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v5i5f.htm

I don't suppose you'll actually read this articles, but there's no point in me being unable to make half the argument they make.

In short, the earth-moon system is much younger than 4.6 billion years old.

Quote:

Lizards didnt turn into mammals. Please please learn some of the BASIC science here before attempting to argue against the theory.

Excuse my use of the word lizard. Reptiles evolved into mammals, supposedly. But it really changes nothing.

You can disagree but then why do all of these people seem to agree?

http://alas.matf.bg.ac.yu/~neman/mammal%20evolution/Evolution.html
http://www.bobpickett.org/evolution_of_mammals.htm

Eh, I was going to find a whole list of websites, but its not worth the energy. Reptiles supposedly became mammals, but that's besides the point. Apparently breasts appeared out of nowhere. That's the point. You can't explain this logically and without evoking supserstition (and irrational belief in chance).

Quote:

However, this is an old trick question, "what came first: the chicken or the egg?".

The answer is your word for chicken has not been defined, so there is no answer. This applies to many of your points, like the probblem of haert evolution, eye evolution, sex, etc, etc. ad infinitum. It comes from a basic lack of understanding of how logic, language, and abstract thinking deal with concrete things in the real world.

Yeah, this is a really complicated way of saying, "I don't really know how it could have been possible."

Quote:

Evolutionary theory--and science in general--is really about liberating man from ignorance, superstition, and fear of the dark unknown, based on the only tools we have; the ability to observe the world, and draw conclusions from that.

There you go, redefining things like a typical evolutionists. Science isn't about liberating man form the unknown. Its about making the unknown the known. About explaining the natural world. You make it seem like science is some kind of savior, its not, its just observation and testing. Although, it is nice to see you admit that you deify science.

Quote:

You are still young, and obviously bright and curious. But I must tell you there comes a time when you simply cannot answer all questions with "common-sense" logic, or "common knoweledge" that your parents or church leader may teach you.

I don't have questions that a theologian cannot answer. I have questions that humanists can't answer.

Quote:

You are best advised to seek to the opinions of experts who have actually studied these things at length. Learn the facts, dont just recycle factoids from propaganda, or rehash ancient arguements that have long since been been dealt with.

A lot of what I study is from prominent scientists who happen to believe in some form of creation. Their credentials are extensive, and they are the experts who have actually studied these things at length.

Quote:

There is a lot out there in the world that is far more interesting than worrying about whether God kept your family together

I'm not worried about kept my family together. Its readily apparent. I don't have to give it more than ten second's thought.

Quote:

what happens to you after you die.

I don't know, I'm gonna be dead for a pretty long time. If salvation is real, I can't imagine anything more important than helping as many people receive salvation as I can before I die, and then receiving that salvation myself.

Quote:

Darwin didnt reach his conclusions simply by sitting around in his dreary home brooding, he went out and saw things as they are, not as you want them to be, or as you have heard they are supposed to be.

Ah, yes. The accusation that I "Sit around in my dreary home brooding." That I don't accept reality, and that I only interpret the world around me based on what I want it to be, or that I only believe what I'm comforable being told.

This is the most arrogant thing you've said yet, if only because you seemed to try and hide it in behind mock friendliness.

To take this to its logical conclusion you must then believe that you are much better than me because you, "aren't sitting around in your dreary home brooding, you went out and saw things as they are, not as you want them to be, or as you have heard they are supposed to be."

You're so much better than me, Matt. I'm just a simple leftover from the middle ages. Thank you for saving me from myself.

edit: I might be mistaking what you're saying. In which case, I'm grateful that you don't mean to attack me.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/19/06 06:04

Not to respond ot evryhting, but just note that that Bob Picket website has many factual errors, such as:

Quote:

We know that some dinosaurs, such as the Stegosaurus and Dimetrodon..

Dimetrodon is not a dinosaur. Stegosaurus is a dinosaur and they are not closely related. you may think I'm being picky, but I would expect more accuracy in science facts from a real expert.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/19/06 11:34

Quote:

Darwin didnt reach his conclusions simply by sitting around in his dreary home brooding, he went out and saw things as they are, not as you want them to be, or as you have heard they are supposed to be.

Quote:

No, this is proceeding from the standpoint that some organisms sexually reproduce.

You're a funny guy you know. Because what does reality prove in this respect?

Quote:

That was my point. Religious folks have no problem believing evolution. Atheistic evolutionists will never compromise, because they refuse to believe in God. They will rationalize their theory against all scientific evidence, because its the only chance they have to keep God out of nature.

It has nothing to do with 'not wanting to believe in God', it's the FACT that there's absolutely zero evidence for the existence of a God, infact the bible is more than questionable in a lot of respects, like pointed out so many times. It's not more than logical for me to simply not believe in a human concept like 'God'.

Quote:

I'm not worried about kept my family together. Its readily apparent. I don't have to give it more than ten second's thought.

Yeah, because if you would think about it longer than ten seconds you might come to the more logical conclusion that there is no evidence for any interaction or influence of God on your family. Since there are plenty of examples of families who are perfectly fine, without believing in any God ...

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/19/06 20:42

Quote:

Not to respond ot evryhting, but just note that that Bob Picket website has many factual errors, such as

Ok, but reptiles evolved into mammals. That's the general belief that evolutionsits have. Whether he got a classification wrong or not, he got that much right.

Quote:

No, this is proceeding from the standpoint that some organisms sexually reproduce.

You're a funny guy you know. Because what does reality prove in this respect?

Are you doing this on purpose? The question was how sexual reproduction could evolve. Someone said that my ignorance was based on thinking that ALL animals sexually reproduce. I said that I knew not all animals sexually reproduce, and that its irrelevant because the fact that some animals sexually reproduce shows that it had to have evolved (if it wasn't created).

Quote:

That was my point. Religious folks have no problem believing evolution. Atheistic evolutionists will never compromise, because they refuse to believe in God. They will rationalize their theory against all scientific evidence, because its the only chance they have to keep God out of nature.

It has nothing to do with 'not wanting to believe in God', it's the FACT that there's absolutely zero evidence for the existence of a God, infact the bible is more than questionable in a lot of respects, like pointed out so many times. It's not more than logical for me to simply not believe in a human concept like 'God'.

Evolution not being true doesn't prove God. It just proves that our origin can't be explained by evolution. But whatever, not really an important point to make. Its just a personal belief of mine. I even admitted it was an argument from emotion.

Quote:

Yeah, because if you would think about it longer than ten seconds you might come to the more logical conclusion that there is no evidence for any interaction or influence of God on your family. Since there are plenty of examples of families who are perfectly fine, without believing in any God ...

If you want to start your own topic on this you can. I'm not going to discuss this any further here, because I think the topic of this thread is more important than whether or not God has had an influence on my family. Its faith anyway, there isn't much to discuss scientifically, so I don't get what good it would do.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/19/06 23:00

Quote:

Are you doing this on purpose? The question was how sexual reproduction could evolve. Someone said that my ignorance was based on thinking that ALL animals sexually reproduce. I said that I knew not all animals sexually reproduce, and that its irrelevant because the fact that some animals sexually reproduce shows that it had to have evolved.

On purpose, well no not really. But your response is evidence that you do know how it works in reality. The part between the brackets that followed shouldn't be there and you know it.

Quote:

Evolution not being true doesn't prove God.

Nor did you disprove evolution, so this is quite irrelevant.

OT: I think I will take some time off replying to the posts here in Hilbert's hotel.

I think it's clear that you have a problem with science because it offends your belief, not because you don't see the evidence that's out there. You don't belief in moral relativism, because you think the bible should be the only moral truth, which it's obviously not. You don't wish to see the transitional fossils because you hope there are none. And I could go on and on, and off course you will say I'm off topic, which is fine. To be honest with you a debate with you is futile, btw I'm still waiting for all the scientific evidence in favor of a creator and god.

Cheers

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/20/06 03:38

I agree with Phemox here, no matter how much evidence we show, no matter what sources we cite, etc.. Irish is convinced he is right and the entire scientific community is wrong.

However, that doesnt mean we should stop trying.

To get back to topic, lets take a look at the evolutiom of mammals from early reptiles.

The main branch-off from the reptile line occured around 280-210 m.y.a. with the emergence of the synapsids. The cynodonts are the group of synsapsids that are likely to be closest to modern mammals. So as you can see, this divergence occured a vastly long time ago, before the dinosaurs even appeared.

Synapsidds and cynodont didnt have mammary glands however. Before mammary glands could devlop, skin glands needed to develop. Reptile skin doesnt have such glands, at least not like mammal skin glands. Mammary glands are just specialzed skin glands, that likely devloped from sweat glands at the hair follicle area.

To see what primitive mammary glands may have looked like one can look at the monotremes, like platypus.

"The platypus female doesn't have nipples, but there is a region whre milk ducts come together and secrete milk onto hairs from which the young then lick or suck the milk. Nipples probably first emerged with Marsupials."
http://alas.matf.bg.ac.yu/~neman/mammal%20evolution/index.html

So, you can see how evolution proceeds by modifying existing features to serve new purposes. breasts didnt just appear one day like magic.

Posted By: EX Citer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/20/06 06:16

What about from reptile to bird? "The" piece (of course it�s only one of the many pieces) between bird and reptiles was found in germany.
Today are still birds with claws on the wings alive which they use to climb. Such birds are still living today in some jungle, but I don�t know which.

http://www.altmuehltal.de/moernsheim/museum/urvogel.htm

Posted By: capanno

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/20/06 07:13

Quote:

I agree with Phemox here, no matter how much evidence we show, no matter what sources we cite, etc.. Irish is convinced he is right and the entire scientific community is wrong.

HAahahahahaha you crack me up!!!!

matt matt, you are the perfect example of a evolution nut, so caught up in your own theories.

Quote:

The main branch-off from the reptile line occured around 280-210 m.y.a. with the emergence of the synapsids.

hu? where do you get this? Oh wait. from the almighty fossil record. no? from some evolutionists who forgot to add "according to speculation" infront of every fact they claim? In any case, whahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/20/06 07:18

NIce insane raving Capanno.. so where are your facts?

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/20/06 18:29

Well.. I for one think darwinist evolution is a stinky load.. Fossils dont really prove relation ot us anymore than monkey skeletons do. I find it to be a crock more or less on the basis that such a radical tranformation from fish to mammalian complex organism would take much longer than a few billion years, and would require much more radical shifts in climate for much longer periods of time than we've had.

What the scientific community have backing this fish to man balogna.. is educated guesses.. guesses that all began with a 16th century vagrant's observations of lizards and reptiles.. not us.

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/20/06 19:20

Creationism = trying desperately to fit reality into the book of Genesis.

I can't stand it when people say "evolutionists", instead, you should say "thinking people who examine and analyze reality using the scientific method"

If you disagree with the scientific method, then you probably should stop taking medication, using computers, driving automobiles, using electric lights, astronomy and physics, because they are all derived from science.

Cretinists take and take and take the fruits of science yet complain when it conflicts with their religious agenda, the desire to take Genesis word for word.

It's the same myopic sub-mentals who wanted to kill Galileo, poisoned Socrates, throw Oscar Wilde into prison, too ignorant to realize that science is the lens with which we regard our universe with awe and respect.

When fascism hits America, zealot fundamental christians will be marching proudly at the front of the parade waving their flags and praising jesus, eager to re-structure universities and threatening professors to promote their anti-intellectual movement.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/20/06 19:28

Why is that pople who have obviously no real understanding of the issues involved are the most vocal opponents of science? The amount ignorance displayed by Iceman and Capanno is staggering.

People: learn some things about something before you criticize, or you just end up sounding like a raving lunatic or a simple immature half-wit.

Posted By: Marco_Grubert

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/20/06 19:46

Quote:

guesses that all began with a 16th century vagrant's observations of lizards and reptiles.

Who ?

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/21/06 04:09

Matt,

I submit to you that I have a very real understanding of the issues involved. You just want so badly to be right that you reserve all validity for your own view.

I love you anyway.

The thing about the scientific method that doesnt really apply to darwinist evolution is that you cant look at any number of bones, or similarly looking animals..and say "mm..they seem to be alike..they must be related" and thats suppose to fly without any quantitative data or definitive invariables to support it.

If this is science, then its qualitative..as opposed to quantitative..which I buy more.

qualitative science is at best educated guessing.. which is why darwin's evolution is a theory, and shall remain so unless we develop definitive verification for it's claims.. since it involves so much prehistory, time travel (not currently possible) would be the only definitive means of proving it into law.

Until it becomes law, this particular theory that I wouldnt buy with my last dollar, shall remain on my list of things to question.

I'm sorry if your encyclopedia britannica says what it says, Matt.. but some of us dont readily believe anything and everything.. if so, you'd believe God was at least possible.

If you percieve it as ignorance that I (and lots of others) dont accept a theory as solid fact yet, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/21/06 04:32

two things both sides shouldnt do:

Scientists: Dont dare approach any debate mistaking science theory for science fact.

And dont percieve science as the end all to what is. Our science, as you kknow and cant dispute is accurante but very incomplete as far as the scale of things we have yet to know.

Religionists: Dont dare approach with religious texts. They contain the written word of man, which regardless of how strongly you believe the word, is subject to innaccuracy and deliberate variation.

I hate to attack on both sides but the main problem with debates over speculative subjects like God, our origins and such is that scientists use their impressive but incomplete compendium of knowledge and religionists use their holy texts and such, both poking holes in references which already contain enough incompletion and dilution to be the source of the unintelligen debates that result.

The fact is we wont know where we came from until we have all the knowledge of this universe, or close to it..and we may not know definitively if a God ever did exist or does.. because we dont even know what to look for or where to look for it!

Our reference points on both inquiries arent solid enough, and no one among us wants to do whats neccesary so that all can go forth and learn the truth... we just want to prove who's right..here and now...when its simply not possible.

I dare anyone to ask "How is it that we go about finding out the truth then?".

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/21/06 04:42

My! I've been so busy with my rpg I forgot all about the debate (actually I've been thinking about it, but I've been on a roll and didn't want to stop working on the game....plus all that nonsense about being social...human interaction and whatnot).

I love watching evolutionists get more and more nasty every time you bring up something that contradicts their religion (

). They don't have any evidence, but as long as they repeat their chant about people who disagree with them being ignorant, and not knowing anything, then that makes everything right.

I'll be around tomorrow. Until then...

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/21/06 04:51

Haa.. I dunno about all that but.. I typically come back to see if I can kidnap a programmer to do my bidding

.. I haven't got one yet so I can't finish the lil mini project I'm putting together. (I've given up on games for now cuz it takes too long to gather up loyal troops..especially without funding.. but I've got other things in mind.. mainly those set to correct that problem.. but I still need one or two draftees from here and I can still use the program for what i've in mind, tho it's not a game. Afterall gamestudio isnt just for games, right?) ..but I usually come up empty netted..:: cough::..handed...

and end up indulging these lil tribunals outta sheer boredom and lack of anything better to do than cage rattle.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/21/06 07:44

Quote:

The thing about the scientific method that doesnt really apply to darwinist evolution is that you cant look at any number of bones, or similarly looking animals..and say "mm..they seem to be alike..they must be related" and thats suppose to fly without any quantitative data or definitive invariables to support it.

Have you read Darwin? His method is thoughroughly scientific. As I said, you obviously havent a clue about it, so maybe you should learn some things...For instance, have you ever heard of cladistic phylogeny? This is computer assisted analysis of derived traits, that relies very much on quantification.

What about genetic data? You can't get any more quantitative than that. Genetic relationships prove close affinities between species,such as humans and chimpanzees, beyond any doubt. if you cant accept this its becase you are either unaware of the data, or unwilling to belive it because of religous and emotional reasons.

As I said, you have shown yourself to be completely ignorant of evolutionary science. I dont say this to hurt your feelings, but perhaps you might want to educate yourself if you want to any credibility at all.

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/21/06 11:40

show me this quantitative analysis results that says I originate from a monkey.. (perhaps you might.. but I dont), and I might believe.

What I will and wont buy about evolution:

I will buy: that man comes from earlier forms of man, according to his envoronmental need for change.

I will not buy: that man comes from reptilian origin. What darwinists tend to link are fossils with minor similarities to a handful of extreme similarities. Sometimes this works where it's obvious.. such as grouping canidae into the same phylum, or categorizing similar birds.. but it's quite qualitative.

Until you sit me in front of database containing genetic analysis that walks me through the hundres of billions of years it wouldve taken for such radical mutations (and not billions) and the dramatic changes on earth that made them neccesary I cannot believe such loose nonsense.

I'm sure this same debate happened the last time there was a clash of scientitific scholary (probably when the earth was still believed to be flat or when it was believed that negroids were subhuman somehow..) but it will all come to light, perhaps in a few more techological strides.. once again.. not now. As much as you might want to be definitely right today, it's still only extremely sophisticated guessing.

What we can agree on is that all physical animal evolution is in direct response to changes in their envoronment. You tell me what change(s) might've required this wild animorph to take place.. and why modern chimps have seemingly gotten the short end of the stick evolutionarily.. and why they still exist if they are a past form of us. Maybe they are genetically our closest match..but that just says their five opposoble fingers and toes and humanid bones makes them closer than any other animal.. it doesnt really say much if the next closest are dogs..

The genetic difference between man and chimp is a significant one.. not as significant as man and whale.. but one which makes them primate and us human.

When this is proven into law, then I may have to buy it.

Posted By: EX Citer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/21/06 12:53

"and why modern chimps have seemingly gotten the short end of the stick evolutionarily.. and why they still exist if they are a past form of us."

The human is only related to the chimpazee. Chimapzees and humans changed alot with the time. Do you know that medieval humans were smaler than people nowadays?
Anyway the chimpazees brain is growing much slower than the human brain. As far as I know the octopos brain is growing the fastest, what would mean that the new human like kind would be a squids kind if it�s going on like now.
Why should the parent kind die if they produce a new kind??? If parents get a child with three arms they won�t die. But the idea is funny. "Ugh! We got a child with three arms! I can�t believe!!! *DIE <--- all humans without 3 arms*"

You know how many kind of insects, mammals, reptiles, bacterias, plants and everything else we have today? It�s like a root of a tree, the deeper you go the more little roots you will find. If you come to a point where the most minerals are, you will find the most little roots. If you come to a point, where the ground has no water and minerals, you won�t find many roots. And every root, has it�s parent root, but still no root is like the other.

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/21/06 17:54

ok that part I was shady on.. but it was too late to take it back xD..

OOh Ex.. there was some national geographic program on a few weeks ago that DID infact suggest that squidy descendats might become the next dominance..

o_O it was largely what if... and ..I could be wrong but doesnt the size of the grey matter portion matter more than the total size..?

Any info about the grey matter aspect?..

Also.. yes typically the "parent" in an evolutionary step is sposta die.. as the evolution takes place as a result of a neccesary change to suite some part of their environment.. changes the "parent" species doesnt have, rendering them subject to species obsoletion.

Like for example.. say there were humans waay before the iceage.. (which I actually do believe) but anyway for examples sake..

the ice ages happens.. we get thicker skin, to survive the more frigid surface over which we must traverse, thicker hair and body hair to combat the colder average temps..and a host of other environment specific changes.. it would serve to evolutionary logic that the preceding species.. or evolutionary step of the same species.. ceases to exist due to said inadaptions. My quaf with darwin's theory of human evolution is what changes couldve neccesitated the fish to reptile to mammal transition.. what was introduced on this planet..because no natural change couldve done so.

anyhow..@_@ ALL HAIL THE SQUIDS..:: hides kamilari dish casually::..

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/21/06 18:36

Creationists believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together at the same time! Yabba dabba doo!

From creationists.org
The Bible clearly teaches that humans and dinosaurs (called "dragons" in the past) were created on the same day. One must engage in hermeneutical back flips to interpret the Bible in any other way on this point. It also goes on to describe interactions between humans and these creatures.

I think creationists make scientologists look relatively sane.

Posted By: sPlKe

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/21/06 19:55

The Bible also states that Earth is flat, set stable in the universe and that there is nothing beyond the sky-.-

Posted By: MathewAllen

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/22/06 00:12

Quote:

Also... yes typically the "parent" in an evolutionary step is sposta die.. as the evolution takes place as a result of a neccesary change to suite some part of their environment.. changes the "parent" species doesnt have, rendering them subject to species obsoletion.

Like for example.. say there were humans waay before the iceage.. (which I actually do believe) but anyway for examples sake..

the ice ages happens.. we get thicker skin, to survive the more frigid surface over which we must traverse, thicker hair and body hair to combat the colder average temps..and a host of other environment specific changes.. it would serve to evolutionary logic that the preceding species.. or evolutionary step of the same species.. ceases to exist due to said inadaptions. My quaf with darwin's theory of human evolution is what changes couldve neccesitated the fish to reptile to mammal transition.. what was introduced on this planet..because no natural change couldve done so.

[Email]anyhow..@_@[/Email] ALL HAIL THE SQUIDS..:: hides kamilari dish casually::..

1) Important! Chimpanzee's are NOT anywhere in our ancestry. They are the closest living relative we have, but the genetic variation suggests we split from them several million years ago. Most of our ancestral species HAVE died out. Homo Erectus, Habilus, etc. Look it up.
2) Also important, the idea is not that animals somehow guide their evolution to fit their needs, it's that random genetic variation over a long period of time causes a new form which is somehow advantageous and thus naturally selected. Fish could theoretically evolve into land animals through this process. Think about it, if no predator existed on land, a mutated fish which could survive on land for even extremely short amounts of time would have a huge advantage, or one which had mutated malformed fins might be able to push itself about on land. The mutation becoems more common, further mutations occur -> eventually it's different enough it can no longer breed and is speciated.

Also, as a side note - stop calling atheists evolutionists. I don't 'believe' in evolution. I think it's so far the most logical theory that exists. If someone came up with something that didn't involve magic or ancient books, but otherwise had less holes, I'd probably think of it as a viable theory as well. (ie. if it turned out all current species simultaneously popped into existance from some reeaaally unprobable natural event, i could probably accept that.) Seriously though, I don't see why it's necessary to believe in A) god or B) evolution.

anyways, rant over. Continue flame war!

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/22/06 01:16

Agreed, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist", this is a label creationists apply to try to "even the balance". But not all atheists may agree with evolution, and not all deists may not agree with it.

The word "belief" is a complicated word, and has many subtle variations of meaning. While I may "believe" what a book or a scientist *says*, I "accept" evolutionary theory. One doesnt "believe" in theories, one accepts or rejects them, based on the evidence.

This is difficult thing to get across sometimes, because it takes a modicum of abstract thought. Thats why there is absolutely no similarity between accpeting evolutionary theory, and beliveing in a god, because there is no way to test the existence of a god. Belief in a god is essentially irrational, and while a god may exist, we can never know. Science is about understanding and modelling those things which we know exist, or what probably exists and could be detected.

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/22/06 02:09

I do agree on that...whether darwinist evolution is a load or not..
doesnt really prove or disprove a god. thats once again a whole nother inquiry.. one we're even less capable of addressing than our true origins.

I reject darwinist evolution on the basis that there has been lots of evidence of more modern man being found to have existed into the hundreds of millions of years before were were even supposed to be cro magnon. (and yes I will look it up soon as I get bred for your viewing pleasure). If theyve found sapien skulls and bones that old, it raises the question to me how much older our sapien species could be.. (billions perhaps?..tho it'd be hard to prove back that far as fossil decay renders bones that old.. dust or close to it.)

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/22/06 02:42

Quote:

there has been lots of evidence of more modern man being found to have existed into the hundreds of millions of years before were were even supposed to be cro magnon.

Without exception this so called "evidence" is bunk, and comprised of errors, misunderstandings, and outright hoaxes. There is no need for me to refute this stuff, when it has already been put to bed long ago.

No primates existed before about 60 millions years ago, much less homo. The evidence is abundantly clear, and the methods used scientific and absolute.

There are other dating systems besides radio carbon, such as electron spin resonance, thermoluminescence, and so on.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/22/06 03:59

Quote:

On purpose, well no not really. But your response is evidence that you do know how it works in reality. The part between the brackets that followed shouldn't be there and you know it.

Honestly. What are you talking about? Someone said that I think all animals reproduce sexually. I said that I know that not all animals do. There's no reason for this to continue. I also have no idea what you're talking about, brackets and whatnot, but I'm not going to go back through the posts. Someone put words in my mouth. I corrected them. That's all.

Quote:

Nor did you disprove evolution, so this is quite irrelevant.

Never said I did. You can't disprove evolution, you can just prove that there's no reason to believe it.

Evolution is a theory that persists whether or not there is evidence for it. If there's no transitional fossils in the fossil record (which professional scientists admit), then that's what we would expect if evolution is true. Its a joke.

Quote:

I think it's clear that you have a problem with science because it offends your belief, not because you don't see the evidence that's out there.

Ok, I bring up some things that are inconsistent with evolution theory, and your response is that I don't believe evolution because it hurts my feelings? If the only way you can defend your theory is to attack my motivation, then that's basically an admission that you don't know why you believe your theory. There is no evidence.

Quote:

You don't belief in moral relativism, because you think the bible should be the only moral truth, which it's obviously not.

So having another thread where this topic has already been brought up isn't enough? I should have the debate in two places?

Quote:

You don't wish to see the transitional fossils because you hope there are none.

You haven't shown me a transitional fossil yet. Repeating the hopeless chant that there are transitional fossils doesn't make them appear out of nowhere. You have to actually have them. Evolutionists have known for 150 years that there are no transitional fossils. Which is why they invented punctuated equilibrium.

Quote:

To be honest with you a debate with you is futile, btw I'm still waiting for all the scientific evidence in favor of a creator and god.

Yeah, its kind of hard to have a debate when you don't speak in ideas, you just insult my motives and say I believe whatever I want to because it feels good.

If you want scientific evidence for a creator then go outside, and open your eyes.

Quote:

I agree with Phemox here, no matter how much evidence we show, no matter what sources we cite, etc.. Irish is convinced he is right and the entire scientific community is wrong.

The entire scientific community doesn't believe evolution anyway.

Quote:

Mammary glands are just specialzed skin glands, that likely devloped from sweat glands at the hair follicle area.

Ah, yes. We sweated milk for a while.

But that's not what I asked. I asked for a plausible way in which this could even take place. How did it develop? Its impossible to describe because its so ridiculous.

Did we develop hormones that made us produce milk? What good are they before we can produce milk? What good is producing milk if we don't have the hormones to control release? Which developed first? Then, you have to factor in changes in the brain to regulate the entire process. Can you actually think critically for a moment, and tell me how that could have happened little by little?

No piece is good without the other, and half working mammory glands are useless too. They wouldn't be selected for. They won't be selected for if the proper hormones aren't being produced correctly. Hormone production won't be selected for unless milk is being produced.

By the way, this is a pretty big transition. Where's the evidence? All you have are lizards that don't produce milk, and then all of the sudden you have mammals that do. You wouldn't believe that on faith, would you?

Quote:

To see what primitive mammary glands may have looked like one can look at the monotremes, like platypus.

I'd hardly call that primitive. It already has every peice in place. A primitive, transitionary gland might include some of the steps leading up to milk production. But you won't find that, because nature won't select for that.

Quote:

I can't stand it when people say "evolutionists", instead, you should say "thinking people who examine and analyze reality using the scientific method"

If the scientific method could be defined as, "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

We haven't observed evolution. We can't reproduce it through repeated experiment and testing. Its just speculation.

Before you go screaming about germs, please, use some common sense. Those germs will remain germs for as long as time exists. We've never seen an animal become another kind. It has to be accepted on faith.

Quote:

If you disagree with the scientific method, then you probably should stop taking medication, using computers, driving automobiles, using electric lights, astronomy and physics, because they are all derived from science.

You pointed out a big difference between evolution and science. The scientific method gives us useful stuff, things that change our lives. Evolution causes biologists to waste time coming up with trees, and charts......and not much else. Oh wait! It did cause dentists to give bad advice about wisdom teeth that caused lots of problems.

Quote:

Cretinists take and take and take the fruits of science yet complain when it conflicts with their religious agenda, the desire to take Genesis word for word.

We're not out to prove genesis, we're just out to show that the world and everything living in it was created. If you want to believe it was genesis, go ahead. But it doesn't have to be.

Quote:

It's the same myopic sub-mentals who wanted to kill Galileo, poisoned Socrates, throw Oscar Wilde into prison, too ignorant to realize that science is the lens with which we regard our universe with awe and respect.

So....because some idiots wanted to kill and imprison some people hundreds of years ago, evolution is true? How about you come up with some evidence?

Quote:

When fascism hits America, zealot fundamental christians will be marching proudly at the front of the parade waving their flags and praising jesus, eager to re-structure universities and threatening professors to promote their anti-intellectual movement.

I can't think of any of the bigger, modern creationist organizations that want evolution explicity taken out of the classroom. They just want students to be taught the truth about it.

Fascism is an anti-christian concept, by the by. One of the most famous fascists ascribed to evolution.

Quote:

Have you read Darwin? His method is thoughroughly scientific.

I'm glad you mentioned that. Because he thought diet, excercise, and behavior determined evolution. Which turned out to be horribly wrong. Evolutionists are quick to say that that doesn't drive evolution.

He said giraffes obtained larger necks by stretching out to reach food sources. Does it get any less scientific than that? He invented natural selection (which was more accurately described by a creationist) out of ignorance of science (namely genetics which would quickly come to fruit about that same time).

Quote:

This is computer assisted analysis of derived traits, that relies very much on quantification.

So anything we can simulate in a computer is automatically true? I don't know, The Matrix Reloaded is on the tv behind me, and someone just jumped out of a window, slowed time down almost to a crawl, and is shooting her uzis at someone who just jumped out a window after her. That's a pretty good computer simulation, but I don't suppose that automatically makes it scientific.

Quote:

Genetic relationships prove close affinities between species,such as humans and chimpanzees, beyond any doubt. if you cant accept this its becase you are either unaware of the data, or unwilling to belive it because of religous and emotional reasons.

No more so than us looking alike proves evolution. We have 35% of our genome in common with a specific species of flower (can't remember which one offhand). Does that make us 35% flower?

Quote:

Do you know that medieval humans were smaler than people nowadays?

Thanks to changes in lifestyle, not evolution.

Quote:

If parents get a child with three arms they won�t die. But the idea is funny. "Ugh! We got a child with three arms! I can�t believe!!! *DIE <--- all humans without 3 arms*"

Because, thanks to sexual reproduction, if the parent kind doesn't die off, then the changes will just get drowned within the gene pool and not do much to change the animal at all.

Quote:

I think creationists make scientologists look relatively sane.

What's the objection to dinosaurs living with people? Unless Jurassic Park is considered science 'fact.' Wouldn't surprise me.

Quote:

The Bible also states that Earth is flat, set stable in the universe and that there is nothing beyond the sky-.-

Except that no it doesn't. If you want to discuss these further, please bring them up in the bible thread. The bible is actually one of (if not) the first documents to reference a spherical earth.

Quote:

Agreed, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist", this is a label creationists apply to try to "even the balance".

Ok then. In that case, there's no such thing as creationists.

Quote:

But not all atheists may agree with evolution, and not all deists may not agree with it.

An evolutionist is someone who believes evolution is true. If you have a problem with this definition, then I'll call evolutionists, "People who believe evolution happened." That way I won't hurt your feelings.

Quote:

Without exception this so called "evidence" is bunk, and comprised of errors, misunderstandings, and outright hoaxes.

For a moment I thought you were talking about all the proofs of evolution.

Anyway, I like how a thread talking about the problems of evolution quickly gets sidetracked onto religion, and questions of motive. Are you guys having a problem producing thoughts on your own theory?

Furthermore, you guys got defensive of atheism. A topic I didn't see anyone even bring up. You can't help but equate evolution with religion. Your judgement is clouded, and that's the only reason you believe evolution in the first place. Creationists don't care. If God created through evolution, then He did. We don't need to confuse ourselves and live in ignorance just to rationalize our worldview.

If evolution is so obvious, then you shouldn't have to distract the debate with religion, and all that other nonsense.

One day, the acceptance of evolution as fact will be known as the dark age of science.

Posted By: capanno

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/22/06 08:09

Quote:

Creationists believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together at the same time! Yabba dabba doo!

From creationists.org
The Bible clearly teaches that humans and dinosaurs (called "dragons" in the past) were created on the same day. One must engage in hermeneutical back flips to interpret the Bible in any other way on this point. It also goes on to describe interactions between humans and these creatures.

I think creationists make scientologists look relatively sane.

Ummm. How about you read up what your raving about, before posting. You just make yourself look stupid.

And spike, where did you get that lovely piece of info? On some geocities hosted site? Your post shows that you have not done ANY research on the topic.

I like using the term evolutionists ok... Did any of you evolutionists read the creationists arguments? Did you do some research on what evidence we have? Or are you just ranting on the stuff you read on the berkeley website? (which is a hilarious site btw.)

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/22/06 20:14

Quote:

Ummm. How about you read up what your raving about, before posting. You just make yourself look stupid.

Actually you make yourself look stupid here...becasue what he writes makes sense and is based on facts.

Posted By: MathewAllen

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/22/06 22:55

Quote:

The matrix reloaded is on a t.v. behind me...

Riiight. That's like comparing a pie-graph to looney toons. Honestly, theres a slight difference between an ANIMATION and a SIMULATION, and I hope you realize that. Proffesional computer simulations are about as accurate as you can get, provided they have all the variables right.

MORE IMPORTANTLY
Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with modern evolution! Who cares that darwin was wrong? It's not his ideas that are taught, apart from his (widely accepted by the scientific community as being) correct ones.

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/22/06 23:07

hehh the creationist patrol is here!

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/22/06 23:10

The animation in the matrix is meant to simulate real life. But they got some variables wrong (the 'speed' of time being a big one), that's why it isn't very accurate. The point is, pie charts, or simulations of evolution just put a face on an idea. That doesn't make it more than an idea. Unless you have all the knowledge in the universe, you can't know if the simulation is completely accurate...unless you can test its predictions. Evolution is untestable by its nature.

Quote:

Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with modern evolution! Who cares that darwin was wrong?

Tell that to Matt. I was just pointing out all the errors Darwin made. Matt takes this as a general insult to evolution itself, and refuses to admit what scientists have known for a long time (namely that Darwin got the details of evolution wrong).

edit:

Nice cartoon. Except the entire argument against creationism is a strawman. Number one, antibiotics resistance has nothing to do with evolution. It happens, yes, but we've found ancient bacteria that were resistant to penicillin years before the antibiotic was even invented. All the antibiotic did was kill off all the germs that weren't already resistant. That's not evolution, its simple natural selection (loss of genetic data). Furthermore, germs exchange plasmids with each other, and viruses can carry genetic snippets between populations. Both methods also provide resistance, but do nothing to explain where that data came from in the first place.

That cartoon, and evolution in general, is the epitome of ignorance. Thanks to evolutionists, you were taught what amounts to a lie about science, and the creationists are the ones who apparently know more about science in this case. Which theory is really stuck in the dark ages?

The cartoon was pretty funny though.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/23/06 00:06

Quote:

Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with modern evolution!

Well, I dont think this is accurate... this is like saying Newtonian physics have nothing to do with modern physics.

Of course darwin made some mistakes, its hard when you are creating a totally new field of science. And poeple can sit around and point out some errors and therefore expect everyone to assume he was wong about everything? Darwin's ideas have certainly been modified greawtly. he was working 150 years ago, so obviously we have learned some more things since then...but wihtout him we still would be able to make sense of it.

And as I said a million times, if you havent read Darwin, you cant really discuss his ideas intelligently, despite what crap you find on creationist websites.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/23/06 09:08

You rest what case?

I was responign to the fact that you say this guy looked stupid, when in fact he was showing how creationists belive in some absurd things.

Being open-minded is a good thing, but being gullible is another.

Do you belive in aliens flying around in saucers? Its possible..What about Bigfoot, or loch ness monster.. they could exist.. be open minded...

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Things evolution can\\\'t explain - 06/23/06 09:23

Quote:

Nice cartoon. Except the entire argument against creationism is a strawman. Number one, antibiotics resistance has nothing to do with evolution. It happens, yes, but we\\\'ve found ancient bacteria that were resistant to penicillin years before the antibiotic was even invented. All the antibiotic did was kill off all the germs that weren\\\'t already resistant. That\\\'s not evolution, its simple natural selection (loss of genetic data). Furthermore, germs exchange plasmids with each other, and viruses can carry genetic snippets between populations. Both methods also provide resistance, but do nothing to explain where that data came from in the first place.

pleeease! that\\\'s ridiculous! you can talk with any doctor about that but maybe cretinists shouldn\\\'t search help in modern medicine but in some voodoo priests...

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can\\\'t explain - 06/23/06 22:38

Quote:

pleeease! that\\\'s ridiculous! you can talk with any doctor about that but maybe cretinists shouldn\\\'t search help in modern medicine but in some voodoo priests...

I'm having a hard time understanding this because you apparently speak some kind of Engl///////sh. That's a language I'm not familiar with.

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics has nothing to do with evolution. Its a scientific fact that mislead evolutionists have a hard time coping with. Its been proven time and again, and even college biology textbooks teach it as fact to students.

Penicillin resistance existed years before penicillin. Viruses can carry DNA that provides resistance between species. Bacteria can exchange plasmids that provide resistance.

The ONLY mutations that provide a resistance, do so by destroying a natural part of the germ. For instance, the receptor that reacts to an antibody will be destroyed by a mutation. Which keeps it from dying, but it had to lose part of its structure to do so. That's the opposite of evolution.

Do you have a scientific response to this? Or are you just going to keep mumbling about voodoo priests? I suppose it doesn't help that evolution isn't scientific in the first place.

Quote:

I was responign to the fact that you say this guy looked stupid, when in fact he was showing how creationists belive in some absurd things.

No one has answered my question yet. Why couldn't humans have coexisted with dinosaurs? Please answer this question without referencing highly imaginative fiction like Jurassic Park.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Things evolution can\\\\\\\'t explain - 06/23/06 22:54

sorry, my browser has a malfunction which adds the \\\\\\.

i have some pharmacology books of my brother (who is a medic) lying around here but they won\'t be of much help since they are in a different language and i don\'t have the time to translate anything.

just ask any doctor about this topic the next time you have the chance.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can\\\\\\\'t explain - 06/23/06 23:27

Quote:

sorry, my browser has a malfunction which adds the \\\\\\.

Don't apologize, I was just giving you a hard time.

Quote:

just ask any doctor about this topic the next time you have the chance.

They will tell me that germs become resistant. And I have no objection to that. In fact, you could even call it evolution, and technically you'd be right. But the mechanism of how these bacteria become resistant is what's important, and by this mechanism no matter how many times these bacteria resist an antibiotic, they'll never become anything other than a bacteria.

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/24/06 05:07

Yea.. I was waiting for someone to say comparing Charles Darwin's work to Isaac Newton's was a bad example.. as Newton's work delved into advanced mathematic calculation and experimentation in order to come up with his laws..
(laws and many very instrumental calculations).

I think the only similarity is that both layed the foundation for future exploration of the field. But Newton had alot more tangible an inquiry to answer to, in all fairness. I don't blame Darwin for his partially factual but highly hypothetical findings, I simply think it shouldnt be construed as the same invariable fact that most of Newton's work is, barring what he couldnt possibly work out accurately.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/24/06 05:12

I think the problem is that Matt thinks that when I say, "The scientific community is quick to admit Darwin was wrong," he thinks I'm saying that the scientific community rejects evolution. They don't, they just know that darwin didn't understand how it [supposedly] works....at all.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/24/06 07:04

Quote:

Newtonian physics is extremely useful for predicting things on earth.

Yes, and so is Darwinian evolution. He predicted that the earliest human ancestors would be found in Africa, and he was right. He predicted that intermediate forms between species would be found, and he was right.

Darwin's theories gave us an understanding of how species form, how traits that seem almost miraculous, like the patterning on certain animals, could have developed naturally.

He was the first to understand how isolation and physical boundaries can force populations to speciate.

Darwin is considered the greatest scientists of the 19th century, and one of the greatest and most important of all time. Like Newton, he created a new kind of science.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/24/06 22:37

Quote:

Yes, and so is Darwinian evolution. He predicted that the earliest human ancestors would be found in Africa, and he was right. He predicted that intermediate forms between species would be found, and he was right.

We assumed an age for the earliest humans, and so when we found early human bones, we knew they were the earliest because we had already assumed an age for them. Great.

There are no intermediate forms. How many times do we have to go through this? Its call the "paleontologists trade secret" for a reason.

Quote:

Darwin's theories gave us an understanding of how species form

Life develops because of DNA. After conceptions, humans don't mutate from a single cell into a full grown human. We develop according to a complex schematic (our DNA). So our understanding of DNA, not evolution, tells us how animals develop. Evolution just tries to figure out what we used to develop into. Even then, science can't agree on one solid tree, and that means there is no solid tree. Its all subjective. Thus it isn't science and we're wasting our time trying to figure it out.

This is a tautology anyway. Darwin said, without any reproducable evidence, that animals evolved (it was based on observations, but he never actually saw an animal evolve). So therefore, he gave us a way to understand the evolution of species. That's like saying, "The sun is made from the laughter of children. So now I've explained how the sun is made out of the laughter of children." It begs the question of whether or not I was right in the first place. In fact, assuming evolution is true, even without being able to reproduce it, is very limiting. Evolution limits science, it puts all of biology through a filter, and a false one at that.

Quote:

how traits that seem almost miraculous, like the patterning on certain animals, could have developed naturally.

Which is why he said evolution couldn't explain the eye, of course.

Quote:

He was the first to understand how isolation and physical boundaries can force populations to speciate.

He was the first to postulate that isolated organisms speciation, but he misunderstood how it happened.

Quote:

Darwin is considered the greatest scientists of the 19th century, and one of the greatest and most important of all time. Like Newton, he created a new kind of science.

He's an icon, nothing more. His theory should have died once we figured out most of his guesses about evolution were incorrect, but he finally gave atheists a reason to feel smart, so they wouldn't let the theory die that easily.

I recommend anyone who's interested read this dissection of some of Gould's literature.

http://www.blavatsky.net/darwin/stasis_in_fossil_record.htm

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/24/06 23:13

Quote:

There are no intermediate forms

Yes there are. We have shown you mnay examnples. If you choose not accept these forms you are wrong, and dont expect anyone in the scientific community to take your seriously.

How can I have an intelligent discussion with someone who wont accept reality? It impossible to explain to a crack pot why he is wrong, because he isnt interested in facts, only his interpretation of reality.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/25/06 02:25

Quote:

Yes there are. We have shown you mnay examnples. If you choose not accept these forms you are wrong, and dont expect anyone in the scientific community to take your seriously.

No, what happened was you brought up several fossils that you thought were good examples of transitional creatures, creationists and myself showed you why you were wrong, then you probably attacked the bible thinking that would prove you were right, and then you gave up.

Quote:

How can I have an intelligent discussion with someone who wont accept reality? It impossible to explain to a crack pot why he is wrong, because he isnt interested in facts, only his interpretation of reality.

I feel the exact same way.

Posted By: jcl

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/25/06 11:27

What was the problem with the transitional fossils that were brought up here? The Tiktaalik and the two legged snake both certainly appear to be forms in transition.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/25/06 17:12

Quote:

We assumed an age for the earliest humans, and so when we found early human bones, we knew they were the earliest because we had already assumed an age for them. Great.

There are no intermediate forms. How many times do we have to go through this? Its call the "paleontologists trade secret" for a reason.

This is so not true, and I'm quite sure you haven't met or spoke to any paleontologist nor do you seem to have much knowledge about paleontology at all.

You claim they make stuff up, well then, prove it! There is no circular reasoning involved like you claim, yes they make use of indirect evidence sometimes, but that's not circular reasoning at all.

And like pointed out before there definately are intermediate forms, but you don't seem to like it for some reason.

Quote:

This is a tautology anyway. Darwin said, without any reproducable evidence, that animals evolved (it was based on observations, but he never actually saw an animal evolve). So therefore, he gave us a way to understand the evolution of species. That's like saying, "The sun is made from the laughter of children. So now I've explained how the sun is made out of the laughter of children." It begs the question of whether or not I was right in the first place.

You've misunderstood the observation-part here. He only witnissed natural selection, survival of the fittest and as a result of this he saw speciation around him. He didn't even had a full theory before he witnissed this. By the way, believing in your own theory when evidence shows you are at least on the right track, seems perfectly okey to me.

Cheers

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/25/06 18:06

Quote:

What was the problem with the transitional fossils that were brought up here? The Tiktaalik and the two legged snake both certainly appear to be forms in transition.

Tese were faked!!11 Or, they just look similar, but you tell me a animal cn grow a arms and not use them too? IT WOULD DIE!!11 Animals cant survuve with transitional forms, so you whole thoery is lies!!1. I have a PHD in biolology!!

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/25/06 22:39

Quote:

What was the problem with the transitional fossils that were brought up here? The Tiktaalik and the two legged snake both certainly appear to be forms in transition.

What was the proof that it was in transition? It had fins that could flex? As I recall the fins of a coelacanth leds us to believe it was in transition. Oh wait, that one has been in stasis for about 100 million years or more. Hm.

This creature appears perfectly adapted to doing what it does. Mudskippers have been mudskippers for as long as we know. They haven't given birth to anything but mudskippers. Based on arbitrary and highly subjective classifications we could call these transitional. However, besides arbitrary classification, there's no reason to think mudskippers have, or will transition. But we should somehow assume that these creatures, which we only observe three partial skeletons of, gave birth to something besides the exact same creature. That's kind of a big leap of faith.

This creature is in transition, only if you assume that creatures do transition. Even then, we could only know that it transitioned, if we already know that creatures do transition. There's no evidence that it would otherwise, but the only reason you guys say we have to believe creatures do transition is because of the fossil record. That's getting kind of close to a tautology.

Quote:

the two legged snake both certainly appear to be forms in transition.

The two legged snake would only prove that animals could lose limbs, at best. You don't explain how animals got legs by saying they lost them. I guess there's the chance its in transition. Transition into something less than it was. Perhaps a true transitional fossil snake would show a lizard with a mostly normal skeletal structure, but with some snake like attributes. The only problem with that, is that nature would never select for such a creature. It would be rediculous to even think that a lizard would become a snake in the first place. At what point in being half lizard, half snake, would it be more adapted than just being a plain old lizard? In fact, the slow, bit by bit process makes it seem all but impossible.

Although, based on the evidence at hand, I could just say these snakes went extinct in their two legged form, without giving birth to any kids. My claim would be just as substantial. It just wouldn't be taken as seriously because it ignores evolution.

You can claim I lack imagination, but lizards move well because they're designed like lizards. It would be a burden extra ribs and body length, while still generally being a four legged lizard if you otherwise had a good way to move about.

Quote:

This is so not true, and I'm quite sure you haven't met or spoke to any paleontologist nor do you seem to have much knowledge about paleontology at all.

I'm sorry, they found the bones of actual humans. Except some of them were stricken with diseases, or they had smaller skulls than most, or overdeveloped features and they called them all new animals. Or they found highly fragmented skeletons, and added a whole bunch of imagination to get to a whole new animal.

Or someone outright hoaxed a skull and it passed your precious 'peer review' for 50 or so years before someone finally figured out they were lied to.

Quote:

You've misunderstood the observation-part here. He only witnissed natural selection, survival of the fittest and as a result of this he saw speciation around him. He didn't even had a full theory before he witnissed this. By the way, believing in your own theory when evidence shows you are at least on the right track, seems perfectly okey to me.

If Darwin had used a little bit of different reasoning, the evidence he saw would have put him on the right track to creation too. But I don't suppose that matters. Nothing he saw contradicts creation, he just imagined it was evidence for evolution.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/26/06 12:19

Quote:

If Darwin had used a little bit of different reasoning, the evidence he saw would have put him on the right track to creation too. But I don't suppose that matters. Nothing he saw contradicts creation, he just imagined it was evidence for evolution.

Okey, explain why the evidence would support creation instead please, because that sounds to me like plain crap.

Quote:

This creature appears perfectly adapted to doing what it does. Mudskippers have been mudskippers for as long as we know. They haven't given birth to anything but mudskippers.

Right, and there were also never sheep born with two heads, never humans without arms born, there is no such thing as a siamese twin and there is no such thing as mutations.

Come on, evidence shows otherwise, seeing the forms in transition is as easy as 1,2,3, but you just desperately ignore them because it offends your belief.

By the way the coelacanth isn't THAT surprising, just look at sharks, that species is also over 100 million years old. It just means that their situation hasn't changed that much and that they've been adapted well enough to not need change that much.

Quote:

Although, based on the evidence at hand, I could just say these snakes went extinct in their two legged form, without giving birth to any kids. My claim would be just as substantial. It just wouldn't be taken as seriously because it ignores evolution.

You can claim I lack imagination, but lizards move well because they're designed like lizards. It would be a burden extra ribs and body length, while still generally being a four legged lizard if you otherwise had a good way to move about.

You don't lack imagination, otherwise you wouldn't believe in God in the first place. Do you know what 'rudimentary' bones are? If not, then better look it up.

If designed, then for exactly what does a whale need bones where once legs were? You see, your conclusion doesn't make sense if you ask me,

Cheers

Posted By: capanno

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/26/06 13:01

Quote:

Right, and there were also never sheep born with two heads, never humans without arms born, there is no such thing as a siamese twin and there is no such thing as mutations.

Yes, but those are scrambled info. No new info was added. the sheep did not grow a wing out of his nostril. That would be new info. Mutations dont cause a species to develop 'further'. in 99% of the cases mutations mess up a perfectly designed system. Look at your examples.

Quote:

If designed, then for exactly what does a whale need bones where once legs were? You see, your conclusion doesn't make sense if you ask me.

Those bones are part of the reproductive system.

Posted By: jcl

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/26/06 15:14

Quote:

This creature appears perfectly adapted to doing what it does. Mudskippers have been mudskippers for as long as we know.

Of course it's adapted to doing what it does, otherwise it would have been removed by natural selection and we wouldn't have a fossil.

You're evading the issue. You first told that there were no transitional fossils, then we show you transitional fossils, and now you're telling us that those fossils are not transitional because they are adapted to doing what they do.

A species is transitional when it's just between two other species in time as well as in a certain feature, as in the above case the fin -> leg transition.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/26/06 20:47

Quote:

Okey, explain why the evidence would support creation instead please, because that sounds to me like plain crap.

Let's take his finches for instance. He saw that there were 13 species that were all fairly similar, and said it looked like they had come from a similar acestor. His assumption was that this ancestor was more basic than all of these species. When in fact, what we know about genetics, speciation, etc could just as easily have led him to the conclusion that there was an original finch, from which the genetic data had diverged (without the creation of NEW characteristics) into 13 different species. For instance, finches with longer beaks survived better in one environment, finches with thicker beaks survived better in another, and finches with smaller bodies in on environment, etc. Much like dogs, these finches are just the result of one set of one kind splitting off into various other species.

Basically, instead of jumping to the conclusion that all varieties of finches came from a basic ancestor, he could just as well have assumed they come from a more complex (genetically) ancestor. And there would be no reason to assume he was wrong. In fact, if we took selective pressures off (and this has been shown to happen) the finches could interbreed between species (hybridize) and return closer to the genetic characteristics of a more generalized finch.

Just as an example.

Quote:

Right, and there were also never sheep born with two heads, never humans without arms born, there is no such thing as a siamese twin and there is no such thing as mutations.

Remixing existing DNA into the wrong spot, or copying DNA into the wrong spot is hardly what I would call a transition. I mean, technically I guess it is. But its not going to change a sheep into a banana.

Quote:

Come on, evidence shows otherwise, seeing the forms in transition is as easy as 1,2,3, but you just desperately ignore them because it offends your belief.

Can you seriously not respond with anything except questioning my motives.

Quote:

By the way the coelacanth isn't THAT surprising, just look at sharks, that species is also over 100 million years old. It just means that their situation hasn't changed that much and that they've been adapted well enough to not need change that much.

Yeah. It seems pretty much every species reserved in the fossil record is perfectly adapted and doesn't change. Stasis (unchanging) is the rule, not the exception. The fossil record shows animals popping up, without ancestor, not changing, and then disappearing after million of years with relatively little change.

Quote:

If designed, then for exactly what does a whale need bones where once legs were? You see, your conclusion doesn't make sense if you ask me,

Man, digging out the lies of evolution is like digging out weeds. If you don't hit the whole root, it keeps popping back up. I totally almost typed pooping instead of popping.

Anyway, those 'legs' are anchors for muscles and the genitals. They make reproduction possible. Doesn't sound like legs to me. Besides, they aren't attached to the 'axial' skeleton like you would expect legs to be. They 'float' below the spine.

Your theory doesn't make sense to me, because evolutionists can mislead people (or lie in some cases) and people will believe those lies for years and years.

Much like I believed a lie that eventually made me question evolution.

Quote:

You're evading the issue. You first told that there were no transitional fossils, then we show you transitional fossils, and now you're telling us that those fossils are not transitional because they are adapted to doing what they do.

Let me put it this way. Creatures never transition in real life. These creatures you cited don't have creatures that transition into them, or transition away from them. They just have fins that are different from most fish. Why can't I just assume that these creatures weren't created with these fins to begin with? There's just as much evidence that these animals haven't transitioned as there is that they have transitioned.

What takes it out of the range of fish, and into the range of some other kind of animal?

Coelacanth had unusual fins. Scientists original stated that it walked along the ocean floor. Then it turned out it just swam better with those kinds of fins. How is this any different?

The supposed transition here is between fins and arms. Your proof that fins turned into arms is an animal that has fins?

That's a killer whale's fin bone above the tiktaalik's. Why couldn't tiktaalik have evolved into whales, they look pretty close? If evolutionists were convinced that tiktaalik were the transition between fish and whales, this would have been 'undeniable proof' of the transition. In fact, the evidence is so open ended, that you can pretty much read any transition into it that looks relatively close.

The evidence is good enough to name a transition into several kinds of animals. So I say that means its not evidence that it lead to any of them. Again, if animals (even, and especially, according to the fossil record) do not change, why should I believe this one did?

There is no unbroken line of evolution in the fossil record, so what this comes down to once again is the argument that since some animals look alike, they must have evolved.

Whales have fins, why would fish eventually evolve into mammals which would then re-evolve fins again? Trying to add imaginary stories into animals and the fossil record is going to produce some inconstiencies or downright stupid ideas. Nature doesn't work the way evolution would like it to. You can read anything you want it to it, and the evidence is so open ended you'll eventually find 'undeniable proof'.

edit: My main point is we've heard all of this before. The clamoring by evolutionists to jump on the newest fossil. We've heard, "This animal has pre-legs before." But what'll happen is what always happens, they'll find a fossil they like better, and then so, "Ok, we admit now that it wasn't really a good example of a transition."

One other major point is that, like all other animals with lobe fins, this creature doesn't have the fins attached to the axial skeleton. It wouldn't be good for bearing weight, with the exception of (possibly) lifting the creature out of shallow water to gulp air.

Posted By: capanno

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/27/06 09:02

Quote:

By the way the coelacanth isn't THAT surprising, just look at sharks, that species is also over 100 million years old. It just means that their situation hasn't changed that much and that they've been adapted well enough to not need change that much.

Another Q. Is it adaptation that causes variation or mutations? I species cant mutate willingly, can it? A mutation happens by itself. Then why is it that 'they did not have the need to change'? In 100 million years alot has supposed to have happened right? Then why is there not even the slightest change?

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/27/06 09:17

Sharks did change. Do you know how many different kinds of small and big sharks exists?

But when a shark is a perfect animal then it is very likely that every new mutation does not make it better. It can (and did) change to a new shark, smaller, thinner or whatever. But to make it a better hunter than it already is? There is no chance. It can smell over long distances, it can feel electricity under water and it can kill prey very fast. It is a perfect animal and most mutation make it worse not better.

Because of this it did not improve over the years.

And concerning the need of evolvement: If a being like human beings do not die very quickly...if there is no chance that a mutated human has an advantage over other ones or can get more children ... then there is no need and even no chance for evolution because you have no advantage over your opponents. In this case evolution stopps. The new mutation will be a weird being and thats all.

You simply need competition for evolution.

Posted By: Damocles

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/27/06 09:49

Here is a little tool, that enables people to see evolution accur in a simulated enviorment,
and see how random mutations and selection can build up very complex structures.

http://www.frams.alife.pl/

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/27/06 18:11

Quote:

Then why is it that 'they did not have the need to change'? In 100 million years alot has supposed to have happened right? Then why is there not even the slightest change?

Evolution is the only theory where EVERYTHING is proof of evolution. If we find a species different than what we see in the fossil record, but similar its because of evolution. If we find the exact same species in the fossil record, unchanged, then its because of evolution.

Everything can be explained by evolution.

Quote:

Sharks did change. Do you know how many different kinds of small and big sharks exists?

Yes, but there are specific sharks that have remained in stasis for 100s of millions of years. The same species.

Its hard to think they weren't put under any selective pressure for 100s of millions of years.

What makes us think we couldn't find any animal alive and intact after however long?

Quote:

Here is a little tool, that enables people to see evolution accur in a simulated enviorment,
and see how random mutations and selection can build up very complex structures.

I could build a computer simulation where organisms don't change. Then I would have proved...nothing. Just like a computer simulation proves nothing. You can usually tell the weakness of an idea by its evidence. If the best evidence for evolution are computer simulations, then that says quite a bit about evolution.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/27/06 20:29

Quote:

You can usually tell the weakness of an idea by its evidence.

A brilliant observation. So, there being absolutely no evidence at all for creationism, it seems it is the weakest idea around.

Seriously, what evidence do you have for your position? None. All you can do is attack evolution, and hope this somehow helps your own claim, when inreality you have absolutely no positive evidenec for a creator or creation.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 05:45

Quote:

A brilliant observation. So, there being absolutely no evidence at all for creationism, it seems it is the weakest idea around.

Seriously, what evidence do you have for your position? None. All you can do is attack evolution, and hope this somehow helps your own claim, when inreality you have absolutely no positive evidenec for a creator or creation.

Well...maybe I do that because evolution is the exact opposite of creation. So if something about evolution is necessarily false, then that aspect of creation is necessarily true. But I wouldn't claim to have 'evidence' of a creator (except His design) because we can't put a creator in a test tube.

But let's put it this way. One proof of a necessary creation is that mutations will never write new animals. Now, ignoring that actual debate, it will necessarily fall to evolution. We'll debate specific instances of mutations that you suppose are valid for evolution because there's no where else to go. So the debate will almost always fall back on evolution by default.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 05:49

No, even if modern evolutionary theory is completely false, it in no way validates any part of creationism. This is not a logical neccesity--perhaps life developed because of the way the wind blows, and molecules are atrracted together by n-forces in the sixth dimension.

In any case, science must deal with purely natural explanations, so it has nothing to say whatsoever on a creator or a god. Why cant you see that? How does it hurt you to admit it?

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 08:12

There will probably never be an evidence for a creator. This is only guessing and guessing with no proof at all is not the way science works.

Evolution has enough proofs and there is no need to discuss this further. Just study it and you will be overwhelmed with info's and articles that come from thousands of authors over a very long period.

It is really simple: Why should so many smart people over such a long period be wrong? Why should Irish_farmer suddenly appears and is the smartest guy in the whole world and falsifies everything. Please be realistic.

And the of reaction of Irish_farmer will be misleading like always. He will quote a single sentence and will state that in the history many people were wrong and it must be logical conclusion that the time comes for his new and en-lighting wisdom

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 14:47

Quote:

Evolution is the only theory where EVERYTHING is proof of evolution. If we find a species different than what we see in the fossil record, but similar its because of evolution. If we find the exact same species in the fossil record, unchanged, then its because of evolution.

Everything can be explained by evolution.

I never said we have found the 'exact same species in the fossil record', so what are you basing this on? When looking at the fossil record you will see that along with different sharks, there have also been very different crocodiles found, another species that 'hasn't changed much'. I was talking about how the species didn't change much over the 100+ million years, I didn't say they didn't change at all.

I meant the fact that they didn't grow wings or rabbit tales. Just to get some things straight.

Quote:

Yes, but there are specific sharks that have remained in stasis for 100s of millions of years. The same species.

No, sizes have changed along with certain internal things most definately. I'm sure the earliest sharks were not as well adapted. We are looking at one of the oldest species, that means that they've had plenty of time to evolve into almost perfect hunters, which they infact are.

Cheers

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 14:50

Quote:

There will probably never be an evidence for a creator.

Sure there will! Have you ever heard of Judgement_Day?

Quote:

Evolution has enough proofs and there is no need to discuss this further. Just study it and you will be overwhelmed with info's and articles that come from thousands of authors over a very long period.

Poppycock! Ive studied it, IM still studying it, however I also study nature (for my art projects mainly) and yet I see the design of God inside everything around me, the more i study nature, the more I am impressed with God's design, and the more i realsise the impossibility of evolution.

Quote:

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

God has made the greatest irony by allowing even the uneducated and the children to understand His creation, it makes no difference to God if all the so-called smart people will believe.

Quote:

Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.

So if this world says: "we see" then they are blind. Science today is saying: "we see"--yet they are blind, and it is becasue God has blinded them.

If we come to Jesus and admit we are blind, only then can we truly see.

Posted By: jcl

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 15:01

Quote:

In any case, science must deal with purely natural explanations, so it has nothing to say whatsoever on a creator or a god. Why cant you see that? How does it hurt you to admit it?

I would agree to restricting science to natural explanations, but this does not necessarily exclude a creator - as long as there's a natural explanation for that creator.

For instance, if we one day find evidence that extraterrestrials have created life on earth, science had to deal with those extraterrestrials. Especially with the question how they evolved and became able to create life.

Fortunately, at the moment it does not look as if life were created by gods or extraterrestrials.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 15:11

Quote:

Sure there will! Have you ever heard of Judgement_Day?

Yes, I can hardly wait ...

oww wait, I'll be dead by then. Aahm, so much for witnissing any evidence about a creator...

Quote:

Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.

And still you don't seem to understand exactly WHY the bible is full of those kind of lines.

You only think the line itself makes sense because you think everything 'Jesus' said must be true. When looking at the exact same line a bit more objective then you'll see that it's clearly nonsense.

Blind people can have sins too, not just that, but why would people that can see be blind? Blind people often are just as biased. The sole purpose of that little line amongst many similar lines is to keep you from asking yourself the right questions ...

Psychological traps, but go ahead and prove to me that it's something else.

(If you like I can quote some Hare Krishna texts for you which have the same 'ingredients' for the same purpose, but then I would go very off topic here.)

Cheers

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 15:12

Quote:

For instance, if we one day find evidence that extraterrestrials have created life on earth, science had to deal with those extraterrestrials. Especially with the question how they evolved and became able to create life.

An interesting fact here in context is that one of the Nobel prize scientists, and discoverer of the precise shape of DNA, Francis Crick, believed that life originated from another planet. And why? Because of his intimate knowledge about the makeup and structure of DNA, he knew that the complexity couldnt have come about by chance.

By jcl's oversimplified view of abiogenesis, life is not a hard probability at all, so it should be popping up all over the planet.

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

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 15:23

Quote:

Blind people can have sins too, not just that, but why would people that can see be blind? Blind people often are just as biased. The sole purpose of that little line amongst many similar lines is to keep you from asking yourself the right questions .

No, the blindness Jesus was referring to was not the physical condition of blindness, but rather a spiritual condition. He outlined this differnce between physical and spiritual dozens of times.

Quote:

When looking at the exact same line a bit more objective then you'll see that it's clearly nonsense.

Just because you dont understand it does not make it nonsense. Jesus even addressed this issue of people not comprehending His teachings:

Quote:

Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
Joh 8:45 But because I say the truth, ye believe me not.
Joh 8:46 Which of you convicteth me of sin? If I say truth, why do ye not believe me?
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth the words of God: for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Quote:

oww wait, I'll be dead by then. Aahm, so much for witnissing any evidence about a creator..

You better hope so.

I find it the irony of ironies that you cannot properly understand the words of Christ, yet most children and uneducated people can...it is because you are blind.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 15:35

Quote:

Poppycock! Ive studied it, IM still studying it, however I also study nature (for my art projects mainly) and yet I see the design of God inside everything around me, the more i study nature, the more I am impressed with God's design, and the more i realsise the impossibility of evolution.

I would like to return the "poppycock" to you

The design of nature is fantastic and impressive. I agree with you in that point. But that is absolutely no proof of a designer / creator. There are explanations for every detail in plants and animals. You just have to explore them. Open your eyes.

If you will not do that then you have to explain everything that is beyond your comprehension with something that has to do with god. And that is a really cheap method of thinking. Maybe C-Script is a result of god?

"poppycock"

what an interesting word. Sounds funny

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 15:43

Quote:

I find it the irony of ironies that you cannot properly understand the words of Christ, yet most children and uneducated people can...it is because you are blind.

Right, whatever you say. I'd say they are simply easier to influence and just 'stupid' or ignorent enough to fall for the traps. Ever wondered why a lot of better educated people instead do not believe in the bible??

Quote:

No, the blindness Jesus was referring to was not the physical condition of blindness, but rather a spiritual condition. He outlined this differnce between physical and spiritual dozens of times.

What made you think I meant otherwise? Off course I know Jesus meant this spiritual blindness. Hare Krishna also claim that people are spiritual blind because they are unaware of the perfect truth, and can only see when they know the perfect truth, it doesn't really mean anything.

No offense meant but, I could say that you seem almost physically blind, considering all the evidence that contradicts the bible and creation. What makes the 'spiritual' more truthfull than the physical if I may ask?

Quote:

Just because you dont understand it does not make it nonsense. Jesus even addressed this issue of people not comprehending His teachings:

Yes, and that's a rather weak argument.

A book or person can't tell wether or not I understand something on beforehand.

If I would write a book to create a religion I will remember to put those kind of lines in it too, just to make it more easy to influence the followers. It has psychological trap written all over it, but you don't understand.

Cheers

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 17:45

Quote:

Right, whatever you say. I'd say they are simply easier to influence and just 'stupid' or ignorent enough to fall for the traps. Ever wondered why a lot of better educated people instead do not believe in the bible??

Thats the exact point Im trying to make, I think that God, in His wisdom, has hidden the deep mysteries of the universe from the "wise", rather choosing to reveal his Plan to the low of spirit, and humble of heart. This does not just include the poor, the children, and the uneducated, but rather includes everyone who has a willing heart, and child-like faith. This HOWEVER does not exclude scientists, as long as those scientists come to Jesus with a child-like heart. It has nothing to do with "stupid" or "ignorant", it rather has to do with goodness and purity of heart.

Quote:

What made you think I meant otherwise?

Because you talked about literal blind people in the context of spiritual blindness, I am sorry if I misunderstood you

Quote:

Hare Krishna also claim that people are spiritual blind because they are unaware of the perfect truth, and can only see when they know the perfect truth, it doesn't really mean anything.

Hare Krishnas, like most religions, have partial truths, this would be a truth I agree with.

Quote:

No offense meant but, I could say that you seem almost physically blind, considering all the evidence that contradicts the bible and creation. What makes the 'spiritual' more truthfull than the physical if I may ask?

I dont see much science that contradicts the bible, and I have often times have wondered why both you and I, looking at the same exact feature of nature, such as a leaf, could have such differeing opinions about the origins of that same leaf.

Just yesterday i was looking through a book of different reptile and amphibian species, and the differences were just so many there is no way to conclude that they evolved...the differences within the major types themselves, the crocidile, the frog and the snake are absolutely defined; how could they have evolved? which one evolved first? Its utter foolishness, nobody here knows how species evolved, or in which order, yet everyone believes that it happened, that is so stupid to me.

Quote:

Yes, and that's a rather weak argument. A book or person can't tell wether or not I understand something on beforehand.

Well you said it was nonsense, that seemed to imply that you dont understand the teachings of Christ, because if you really understood His teachings, you would know it was not nonsense. You might disagree with it, yes, but it is certainly not nonsense.

Quote:

If I would write a book to create a religion I will remember to put those kind of lines in it too, just to make it more easy to influence the followers. It has psychological trap written all over it, but you don't understand.

Please eleaborate on your psychological trap, I dont know why you make this description.

Anyway, dont get angry, life is too short...however, if you are going to hell when you die I wouldnt be wasting my time in an internet forum, I would be enjoying every inch of my time. eat, drink, and be merry for tomorro we die

And I dont want you to die and go to hell

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/28/06 22:10

Yes, you are right, intelligence has got nothing to do with it, but I didn't bring it up either. I understand that wise people don't get excluded, but why does it look like that?

Also, remember that eventhough I see where your previous reply came from, it's not that the 'educated people' I was talking about don't believe for no reason. Most of them have a rather good amount of reasonable arguments for believing in what they do. I doubt this has much to do with Gods plan, unless he's out to mislead a part of mankind.

Quote:

goodness and purity of heart.

Okey, well I don't know if I have that, I mean, the goodness is there alright, but I'm not sure what to understand under 'purity of heart'. That sounds a bit like the 'spiritual blindness' example to me.

Quote:

Hare Krishnas, like most religions, have partial truths, this would be a truth I agree with.

I think you already understood, but my point was that everyone can claim such things. It's like kicking a door in while it's already open. Adding such 'truths' does give a feeling that the bible is more correct, but it still says exactly nothing. I'm having a hard time trying to explain this in english, however it's clear that no religious text would not add these kind of remarks and that's exactly why they appear in many other religions too.

Quote:

Well you said it was nonsense, that seemed to imply that you dont understand the teachings of Christ, because if you really understood His teachings, you would know it was not nonsense. You might disagree with it, yes, but it is certainly not nonsense.

It's possible to both disagree with the teaching and think that parts of it are nonsense at the same time, like I said a book or person can't tell wether or not I understand something on beforehand.

Why and what's the purpose of all these kind of remarks in the bible? (the remarks warning about others not being able to understand and thinking different etc. etc.) That are the psychological traps I'm talking about.

Tell someone often enough that the world is evil and they will start believing this. Especially when you warn them on beforehand about others who will strongly disagree with the ideas in the bible and react with disbelief etc. and they automatically see 'hey, the bible was right indeed, so it must be true'. Hopefully this clears up what I meant.

Quote:

Anyway, dont get angry, life is too short...however, if you are going to hell when you die I wouldnt be wasting my time in an internet forum, I would be enjoying every inch of my time. eat, drink, and be merry for tomorro we die:(

And I dont want you to die and go to hell:)

Thanks

, I can relativate enough to never be really angry though, eventhough sometimes I do get irritated. I never let it ruin my days though.

I definately don't want you or anyone else for that matter go to hell either.

You seem to assume that I will go there nevertheless, which I can understand

, but don't worry about me, there's enough goodness left in me. I know, according to your worldview one cannot judge himself, and I can't/won't either.

As for my literal personal well being, I guess I'll see what happens, it will however take some time before I will find out what's past the light at the end of the tunnel ... at least that's what I expect at the moment.

But you do make a good point though, I'm wasting quite some time on these forums

...

(Oww and on a little sidenote here, if my replies look to be somewhat or a lot emotionally loaded, as in agressive or annoyed then it's just my disbelief about what theist tend to believe in expressed in words. Please do not take anything I write as an offense, not personal either, because I never mean anything I write like that.)

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/29/06 22:25

Quote:

No, even if modern evolutionary theory is completely false, it in no way validates any part of creationism.

Yeah, because then we could have come from space. Blah, blah, blah.

Quote:

This is not a logical neccesity--perhaps life developed because of the way the wind blows, and molecules are atrracted together by n-forces in the sixth dimension.

Quote:

In any case, science must deal with purely natural explanations, so it has nothing to say whatsoever on a creator or a god. Why cant you see that? How does it hurt you to admit it?

That you cannot see the logical problems with this isn't very surprising.

Let's say, hypothetically, we were created. But we had the rule that we could only deal with natural explanations? How would we ever discover this? Is science about limiting possibilities? No.

In fact, just because we deal with natural explanations doesn't mean we specifically discount creation. It just means science would only deal with natural evidence for creation. Not that we immediately know creation didn't happen, simply because God isn't natural. In that case, we just can't scientifically know God.

However, let's give you that we must immediately pursue a natural explanation. Why don't scientists present EVERYTHING to people so they can compare different origins? Why don't they tell people that the fossil record doesn't back up evolution? Why don't they tell them that they have no idea how life might have started on its own? Why don't they tell them that cosmic evolution doesn't happen, nor have we seen any evidence of it happening? Why don't they tell them we can't observe macroevolution? So on and so forth. Just present the information fairly. If your assumption that only natural explanations can exist, science can come up with the natural explanation, but then tell people that its full of holes, and ultimately makes no sense. You guys are essentially pushing lies as truth. You'd have people believe that the mystery of a natural explanation for biogenesis is possible. This is why your beliefs are a religion. You don't use them as explanations, you use them as gospel.

Quote:

There will probably never be an evidence for a creator. This is only guessing and guessing with no proof at all is not the way science works.

No, just things like biogenesis and evolution.

Quote:

Evolution has enough proofs and there is no need to discuss this further.

Oh yeah, the fossil record with a clear line of evolution. Mutations that write information. Genetic trees that match paleontological trees. Oh wait....all of that stuff actually contradicts evolution. Ooops.

Quote:

Just study it and you will be overwhelmed with info's and articles that come from thousands of authors over a very long period.

I've studied it and was hardly overwhelmed. Its all assumptions, or they'll find proof against evolution and claim its proof for evolution. For instance, genetic similarities will exist in animals that should have nothing in common, but that's because evolution can do the EXACT SAME THING twice, or dozens of times. Evolution is nondisprovable pseudoscience. You can rationalize anything as evolution.

Quote:

It is really simple: Why should so many smart people over such a long period be wrong?

Creationists are scientists too. Why should they be wrong? This is a pathetic appeal to authority.

Quote:

Why should Irish_farmer suddenly appears and is the smartest guy in the whole world and falsifies everything. Please be realistic.

I didn't invent the idea that things were created. Nice try, though.

Quote:

I never said we have found the 'exact same species in the fossil record',

I didn't need you to, paleontologists say it.

Quote:

I didn't say they didn't change at all.

The fossil record says they don't change. So regardless of what you say, if you want to contradict 150 years of digging through the fossil record to prove evolution, then go ahead.

Quote:

I would agree to restricting science to natural explanations, but this does not necessarily exclude a creator - as long as there's a natural explanation for that creator.

For instance, if we one day find evidence that extraterrestrials have created life on earth, science had to deal with those extraterrestrials. Especially with the question how they evolved and became able to create life.

So then let's imagine an alternate universe, where God created the universe. The people in the universe might not know it, but for the purpose of this demonstration we're omnipotent so we know it. In this universe they say, "Well, things can only have a natural explanation so we automatically weren't created."

We would wrinkle our brows and go, "Why would their science cut off possibilities? Now they're going to get it wrong."

Science never said that we had to assume their was no creator. We can find natural explanations for the universe, and life. But at least be fair in presenting them. I have no problem with evolution, I just want evolutionists to stop using their monopoly to mislead people. For instance the numerous lies the evolutionists on this board STILL keep using as evidence for evolution. Things that have been known to be false for years.

Quote:

Fortunately, at the moment it does not look as if life were created by gods or extraterrestrials

Says the man who looks at a watch and goes, "How did it create itself?"

Quote:

Blind people can have sins too, not just that, but why would people that can see be blind? Blind people often are just as biased. The sole purpose of that little line amongst many similar lines is to keep you from asking yourself the right questions ...

Wow, Phemox, its amazing to see how you absolutely refuse to even understand a single word in the bible. Regardless of whether or not the bible is true, even the smallest of understanding would tell you that much of Jesus' actions and words were.....metaphorical. He didn't always speak directly, and when he was referring to blindness, it wasn't physical blindness. But I doubt you've read the bible beyond the skeptic's annotated version.

Quote:

The design of nature is fantastic and impressive. I agree with you in that point. But that is absolutely no proof of a designer / creator. There are explanations for every detail in plants and animals. You just have to explore them. Open your eyes.

Just because someone comes up with a guess besides 'creator' doesn't make it true either. So why are you so sure?

Quote:

If you will not do that then you have to explain everything that is beyond your comprehension with something that has to do with god. And that is a really cheap method of thinking. Maybe C-Script is a result of god?

After thousands of years, no one has come up with a better explanation.

Quote:

Just yesterday i was looking through a book of different reptile and amphibian species, and the differences were just so many there is no way to conclude that they evolved...the differences within the major types themselves, the crocidile, the frog and the snake are absolutely defined; how could they have evolved? which one evolved first? Its utter foolishness, nobody here knows how species evolved, or in which order, yet everyone believes that it happened, that is so stupid to me.

What I love is nature is so varied, you could come up with any arbitrary tree of life you want, and guess what? You'd be right every time.

Quote:

Yes, you are right, intelligence has got nothing to do with it, but I didn't bring it up either. I understand that wise people don't get excluded, but why does it look like that?

Most of the major scientists who formed the foundation of modern science were christians or some other major faith. If we were having this discussion at that point, could I use that as proof that religion is superior to atheism?

Posted By: jcl

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/30/06 14:40

Quote:

In fact, just because we deal with natural explanations doesn't mean we specifically discount creation. It just means science would only deal with natural evidence for creation. Not that we immediately know creation didn't happen, simply because God isn't natural. In that case, we just can't scientifically know God.

Science is about explanations. But explaining something with a cause that "isn't natural and can not be explained" is no explanation at all.

Quote:

Why don't scientists tell people that the fossil record doesn't back up evolution? Why don't they tell them that they have no idea how life might have started on its own? Why don't they tell them that cosmic evolution doesn't happen, nor have we seen any evidence of it happening? Why don't they tell them we can't observe macroevolution?

Because scientists normally dislike lying.

Quote:

For instance, genetic similarities will exist in animals that should have nothing in common, but that's because evolution can do the EXACT SAME THING twice, or dozens of times.

Genetic similarities between species are in fact strong evidence of a common ancestor... and thus one of the big problems of creationism.

Quote:

So then let's imagine an alternate universe, where God created the universe. The people in the universe might not know it, but for the purpose of this demonstration we're omnipotent so we know it. In this universe they say, "Well, things can only have a natural explanation so we automatically weren't created."

You do not need an alternate universe. Just imagine a computer simulation that contains artifical, intelligent people. If they knew that they live in a world that was created by a programmer, would their scientists deny it? Of course not. The programmer is a natural, scientific explanation.

Creation per se is not unscientific. Only believing in creation despite otherwise evidence, or believing in a supernatural creation that can not be explained, is irrational and unscientific.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/30/06 22:10

Quote:

Science is about explanations. But explaining something with a cause that "isn't natural and can not be explained" is no explanation at all.

So your replacement to this is to say that even though we don't see evolution in life, in genetics, or in the fossil record, we should accept it simply because it doesn't include a creator?

I'm not saying scientists should conclude that God exists, but it isn't outside the realm of science to admit that geology better fits a flood conclusion.

Or better yet, to admit that we don't have the fossils to back up evolution. We don't have the genetic comparisons to back up evolution (except like any good pseudoscience, when the genetic comparisons don't match up, its just because we would expect things to look contrary to evolution if evolution is true, and besides we can just ignore those instances for the most part and focus on the comparisons that do match up) and so on and so forth. I'm not saying science needs to return to God. But putting science in a box just because you don't like the idea of God isn't any smarter. Its just limiting your thinking.

Quote:

Because scientists normally dislike lying.

Gould would disagree with you. Should I quote him at length again?

Quote:

Genetic similarities between species are in fact strong evidence of a common ancestor... and thus one of the big problems of creationism.

Except where you consider that genetic similarities create more problems than they solve. You're right, a lot of genetic similarities match up with the pre-conceived tree of life. But the problem is that there are just as many that don't. So you could come up with any tree you want, even one in many aspects completely opposite of the accepted tree, and you'd still find similarities that match your tree.

Quote:

You do not need an alternate universe. Just imagine a computer simulation that contains artifical, intelligent people. If they knew that they live in a world that was created by a programmer, would their scientists deny it? Of course not. The programmer is a natural, scientific explanation.

No, because the programmer wouldn't be made out of numbers....so they would have to conclude that the programmer is extra-universal, however they conceive their universe. Its kind of subjective, because no one knows what artificially intelligent scientists would think if they lived inside of a computer.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/30/06 22:30

Quote:

So your replacement to this is to say that even though we don't see evolution in life, in genetics, or in the fossil record, we should accept it simply because it doesn't include a creator?

How can you make such blanket statement that have no basis in fact at all? All the evidence does point to natural evolution by natural selection.

As I said before, you mst be living in a dream world, becasue all the evidecence is right there for you read about and see. If you insist on argueing in this manner, just continually ignoring every peice of real evidence, and claiming that it is all wrong, you just work yourself into a corner you cant get out of--according to you, only you are able to properly understand evidence, and only you know the truth.

It sounds as though you are grasping at straws, trying to hold your sanity together by denying reality.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/30/06 23:22

Quote:

As I said before, you mst be living in a dream world, becasue all the evidecence is right there for you read about and see.

Yes, I've read evolutionists admitting that the fossil record has failed for 150 years to back up darwin's claims. I've read that animals that should have no genetic similarities in common have almost identical genes (which is pretty normal). I love reading about all the natural evidence that contradicts evolution.

And I have yet to hear of an observed instance of evolution. It simply isn't observable, reproducable, or even useful to any understanding of biology. Furthermore, its unfalsifiable much like astrology. Anything that doesn't fit the theory will be made to fit the theory because you accept that its true, no matter what.

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 06/30/06 23:23

>evolutionists

scientists

Posted By: ICEman

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/01/06 01:10

I can't believe this is still going. Ahahahaha.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/01/06 06:08

Quote:

Yes, I've read evolutionists admitting that the fossil record has failed for 150 years to back up darwin's claims. I've read that animals that should have no genetic similarities in common have almost identical genes

I'm not sure who would claim this, unless he was totally ignorant of the fossil record, or didnt understand Darwin. Because the discovery of Archeaoptyrix, made in Darwin's lifetime, was and is seen as good evidence for bird evolution form reptiles. Thomas Huxley himself championed this fossil as proof of Darwin's theory.

The fossil record does nothing if not show that evolution occured. It also shows us HOW evolution proceeded, and gives us informations on the evolutionary descent of many existing species..such as whale evolution--through exclusively fossil evidcne, scientists now know that whales evolved from land mammals called "pakicetids" , odd-looking long-snouted ungulates.

There are of course many other examples. the fossil record is an invaluable source for evolutionary evidence and explanation.

Sicen as far beyond trying to prove that evoltion happened; all work in evolutionary biology is trying to map out exactly what each species evolved from.. check tree-of-life.org ..you can see the latest thinking on evolutionary trees, which are developed using cladistic analysis.

The idea that evolution as a concept is somehow threatened in the scientific world is rediculous and untrue--evolution is true, and is the guiding force behind much modern biology.

Posted By: jcl

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/01/06 08:09

Quote:

I'm not saying science needs to return to God. But putting science in a box just because you don't like the idea of God isn't any smarter. Its just limiting your thinking.

You seem still to believe that science and especially evolution somehow disproves God. This is wrong. In fact there are scientists who believe in God. But they are still scientists, and thus do not limit their thinking to exclude natural explanations for life and nature.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/01/06 14:54

Quote:

Yes, I've read evolutionists admitting that the fossil record has failed for 150 years to back up darwin's claims. I've read that animals that should have no genetic similarities in common have almost identical genes (which is pretty normal). I love reading about all the natural evidence that contradicts evolution.

And yet you haven't been able to come up with even just one valid and true contradiction, but you keep repeating yourself nonetheless as if there are dozens of them.

I guess there's more to it, than just the evidence that contradicts you instead, but it's good to be stubborn ...

Quote:

But putting science in a box just because you don't like the idea of God isn't any smarter.

Aren't you trying to put science away in a box to be able to ignore it even easier? It's tough to understand your behavior, but maybe it's because you already know better and don't what to give up on wishful thoughts? I'm not out to offend you by saying all this, I'm just trying to understand, which I can't ...

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/01/06 20:30

Quote:

I'm not sure who would claim this

Then you're obviously skimming over my posts. Gould.

Quote:

unless he was totally ignorant of the fossil record, or didnt understand Darwin.

Gould knows more about evolution than you could ever hope to know. At least I'd assume he does since he's paid to know.

Quote:

Because the discovery of Archeaoptyrix,

Ah yes, the same transition who's ancestors appear after it in the fossil record. And which has already developed pretty much all of the major features of modern birds. That transition.

The dino fuzz that supposedly lead up to feathers appears after archaeopteryx. Needless to say archaeopteryx not only had feathers, but had feathers already designed for flight.

"But it has teeth!" Ok. So it has one or two oddities for birds. That probably explains why it went extinct.

What's so strange about that anyway? The duckbilled platypus has poisonous barbs on its legs, its a mammal that lays eggs, it has a duckbill, a beaver-like tail, and it uses electroception to locate prey.

Quote:

made in Darwin's lifetime, was and is seen as good evidence for bird evolution form reptiles. Thomas Huxley himself championed this fossil as proof of Darwin's theory.

This is another example of how hard it is to weed out the lies of evolution.

If a good example of a transition into birds is a bird, then that just shows why evolution is so easy to justify for evolutionists.

Quote:

The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists

In other words, animals appear in the fossil record and remain unchanged as long as they are in the fossil record. They don't slowly change into anything else.

Quote:

It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution A great many sequences of two or a few temporally intergrading species are known, but even at this level most species appear without known intermediate ancestors, and really, perfectly complete sequence of numerous species are exceedingly rare ... These peculiarities of the record pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life; is the sudden appearance ... a phenomenon of evolution or of the record only, due to sampling bias and other inadequacies?

This isn't Gould. Its George Gaylord Simpson. But I like it nonetheless.

I like how the immediate response to the lack of evidence for evolution is to figure out how the evidence can be made to fit the theory. Its like coming up with a theory of gravity in a universe with no gravity. "Well, is it possible that things don't fall, because gravity is hard to detect?"

Quote:

The "argument from imperfection" ( with its preposition purposefully chosen by analogy to the "argument from design") works adequately as a device to save gradualism in the face of an empirical signal of quite stunning contrariness when read at face value."

Gould is taking a long time to say that perhaps the record is far too incomplete to save evolution. But then why do animals remain unchanged (stasis) for 100s of millions of years? Uh...well for 100s of millions of years there was no change in selective pressure on some animals. Yeah. That's it.

Quote:

But how can imperfection possibly explain away stasis (the equilibrium of punctuated equilibrium)? Abrupt appearance may record an absences of information, but *stasis is data*. Eldredge and I became so frustrated by the failure of many colleagues to grasp this evident point - though a quarter century of subsequent debate has finally propelled our claim to general acceptance (while much else about punctuated equilibrium remains controversial) - that we urged the incorporation of this little phrase as a mantra or motto. Say it ten times before breakfast every day for a week, and the argument will surely seep in by osmosis: "stasis is data: stasis is data ..."
The fossil record may, after all, be 99 percent imperfect, but if you can, nonetheless, sample a species at a large number of horizons well spread over several million years, and if these samples record no net change, with beginning and end points substantially the same, and with only mild and errant fluctuation among the numerous collections in between, then a conclusion of stasis rests on the *presence* of data, not on absence!

The religious dedication to evolution here is staggering. Animals appear to reproduce after their kind, and that's all the fossil record actually records, but we must save evolution from reality!

This is another quote talking about how stasis is pretty much the law of the fossil record.

Quote:

So if stasis could not be explained away as missing information, how could gradualism face this most prominent signal from the fossil record? The most negative of all strategies - a quite unconscious conspiracy of silence - dictated the canonical response of paleontologists to their observations of stasis.

In other words the layman was just lead to believe the fossil record supported evolution because no one wanted to talk about it. That's nice.

Quote:

All paleontologists recognized the phenomenon, but few scientists write papers about failure to document a desired result. As a consequence, most nonpaleontologists never learned about the predominance of stasis, and simply assumed that gradualism must prevail, as illustrated by the exceedingly few cases that became textbook "classics": the coiling of *Gryphae*, the increasing body size of horses, etc. [note: Apparently Gould himself discusses the failure of these records of change, for instance horse evolution turned out to be undocumented....sorry, Phemox] Thus, when punctuated equilibrium finally granted theoretical space and importance to stasis, and this fundamental phenomenon finally emerged from the closet, nonpaleontologists were often astounded and incredulous.

That's right Phemox. Horse evolution isn't as sure of a thing as you were meant to believe.

So here we have peer-reviewed scientists not telling the layman things that might be important for them to critically examine evolution? Wow.

So you guys have a puzzle, where no two peices actually connect, but you want me to imagine the whole puzzle along with you? Why should I. What evidence do you have that anything has changed over time? Gould, an evolutionist, admits that the fossil record is not what Darwin had hoped it would be. Why should I believe your claims that not only the does the fossil record back up evolution, but that ANY animal have transitioned? I don't normally just believe whatever I'm told. I want to see the evidence you guys use to prove any animal has become another animal.

Quote:

scientists now know that whales evolved from land mammals called "pakicetids"

You mean scientists think pakicetids evolved into whales? Because as far as I know there is no scientist who is 400 million years old. At least last time I checked.

I like the idea behind this one. A mammal like animal falls into the ocean and out pops a whale. Ok. Let's go over this one.

By the way, I like how they scale these animals to make it seem like they're the same size. If creationists did something that subtle, we'd be accused of trying to mislead the public about evolution.

I don't think I found any two sources that completely agreed on whale evolution, strangely enough, but I'll go with this one. Its from the BBC. I'm going to skip their first example because its completely useless, it might as well be the same animal as their second one, and the second one is the one you mentioned, Matt.

Ah, yes! What scientists like to call the 'earliest whale.' The resemblance is uncanny.

How dumb do evolutionists have to make themselves sound before people realize the theory of evolution really is dumb?

The dotted parts are the only parts of the skeleton that were actually discovered. I don't need to mention that there is much room for bias to leak in. Where you don't know the rest of the animal, its possible to add whatever you want that would still make the animal viable. Don't believe me? Pakicetus was originally thought to be a swimming creature with fin-like appendages. Wait! That's right it turned out it was basically a wolf like creature. Oops.

Then there was the pig's tooth that was thought to be early man. The filed down and stained ape skull that was thought to be early man. And then...etc etc etc. I don't trust scientists with a strong bias for evolution to actually be able to properly fill in the gaps. Like I said, evolution only works when imagination is allowed to enter the picture.

Not to mention that even with the imagination this creature still looks like a land animal.

Ok, so a land animal turned into example number 4? A land animal immediately transitioned into a water animal that basically already looks like a whale. That's convincing.

And the last one (number 5) is a whale, we all already understand whales well enough. The problem I see here is the problem I see everywhere else. You go from having mutliple examples of the kind of animal A that transitions into animal B, and then multiple examples of animal B. In other words you have three fossils of land animals, all obviously land animals. And then two different variations on whales. I'm not very dazzled.

Quote:

The idea that evolution as a concept is somehow threatened in the scientific world is rediculous and untrue

If it isn't threatened, its just plain stupid.

Quote:

evolution is true, and is the guiding force behind much modern biology.

Yes, its been useful in....doing....well, I'm not sure how its been helpful actually.

Quote:

You seem still to believe that science and especially evolution somehow disproves God.

Science is able to come up with natural explanations. But that doesn't mean they're true. That problem is that people like you automatically accept any alternative to God as true, even if there is little to no evidence, and then say that you've proved God isn't needed anymore.

Based on everything I've gleened from you. God could exist. But if he does, he didn't create the universe, he didn't order the universe the way it is, and he didn't create life. Its like he's just sitting there, and then all of the sudden, "Oh, hey! There's a universe that created itself and is doing all sorts of crazy things and there are lifeforms that discovered me. Hm, how did this happen? It certainly couldn't have been me because the people in that universe already know that any explanation that involves me is just using me to fill the gaps."

According to you, what's the point of God anymore?

Quote:

But they are still scientists, and thus do not limit their thinking to exclude natural explanations for life and nature.

Neither do I. I know there are natural explanations for the origin of life and explanations for biodiversity. I just haven't seen the evidence.

Quote:

\And yet you haven't been able to come up with even just one valid and true contradiction, but you keep repeating yourself nonetheless as if there are dozens of them.

You either managed to completely ignore things I've been saying, or you didn't grasp what I was saying.

So I'll outline a few of my favorite examples of genetic data that contradicts evolution.

The first being whale evolution. Whale DNA is closer to Hippos, Camels, Pigs, and so on. I don't see any animal along those lines in the evolutionary history.

According to evolutionists the earliest known branching of hippos was 15-18 million years ago, and any common ancestor would have to have persisted for about 32 million years. There is no evidence of this. So you can either accept the molecular evidence, which has no fossil backing, or accept the fossil backing with no molecular evidence. Good luck.

Thewissen et al., Nature 395 (1998) �Whale ankles and evolutionary relationships�

Strangely enough, the outdated fossil record version (probably the one Matt believes) is still presented to the public as the most plausible story of whale evolution. Even though DNA suggest whales did not come from these hyena-like ancestors.

So what were you saying that scientists 'know'? By the way, all of this spreading of misinformation is done by "peer reviewed" scientists. A lot of good that does.

I'm not saying that the scientists didn't think they were right at the time and were purposefully lying. I'm just saying that being peer reviewed doesn't help when your bias causes you to make the wrong conclusion.

Turtles were thought to have given rise to the more modern reptiles and all that junk. After DNA analysis turtles are actually within the same group as other diapsids or 'regular' reptiles.

Science News, 5 December, 1998 �Turtle Genes Upset Reptilian Family Tree� p. 358

Lizard ancestors [tautaras] are actually closer to crocodiles than 'regular lizards' as they were previously thought.

Science News, 6 March 1999, �Turtles and Crocs: Strange Relations� p. 159

We should be able to see the relationship between similar creatures within cytochrome C. Actually I'm mostly bringing this one up because the mere mention of it last time (even though I didn't know much about it at the time) sent you guys on a fit. I want to see what you guys have to say about this one again, because mostly I didn't care at the time.

Animals that are completely diverse have genetic similarities. Elephants and aardvarks for example supposedly share a common ancestor according to DNA relationships.

Perkins, Science News, Vol. 160, August 18, 2001, �A Ticklish Debate: How might the feather have evolved?�, page 107

Flamingos and Grebes, two birds that look and behave nothing like each other, apparently have similar DNA too. We all know what flamingos look like, but grebes by contrast are diving birds, stocky bodies, slender heads, and small necks.

These examples are another instance of evolution being a pseudoscience. When it works out best, looks and structure prove a relationship. But then the DNA evidence disagrees, so when it works out best, animals that look absolutely nothing alike apparently evolved into each other or from a common ancestor usually with absolutely no fossil evidence, or in contradiction to the fossil evidence.

Its not that DNA evidence revises the tree to something more accurate, it mixes the tree up so bad you wouldn't even know it was a tree.

Scallops and sea urchins are about 82% similar in DNA. So that sounds great for evolution. After all, we would expect this sort of a similarity. Until we realize that scallops and tarantulas have 92% in common. That doesn't work out quite so well.

Problems like these lead evolutionists to say things like, "current models of DNA substitution usually fit the data poorly."

Maley & Marshall, "The Coming of Age of Molecular Systematics", Science, 23 January 1998, page 505

Last example for today is my favorite example. The Dll gene.

Quote:

At some point during the growth of an insect larva, a gene called Dll switches on and helps organize some of its cells into legs. If for some reason Dll is shut off, the insect will produce only stumps. In the early 1990s scientists were surprised to discover that almost identical copies of this gene can be found in mammals and other vertebrates--and that they too switch on as legs form. This was surprising for two reasons. For one thing, insects and vertebrates have radically different limbs: ours have bone inside and muscle outside, while bugs are the reverse--their flesh is protected by an armored exoskeleton. For another thing, insects and vertebrates are only distantly related: our last common ancestor lived perhaps a billion years ago and was assumed to be limbless, like a flatworm. Researchers therefore imagined the two lineages evolved their limbs--and the genes that build them--independently.

"Hidden Unity", Discover, January 1998, page 46

Our last common ancestor lived a billion years ago and had no limbs, and yet mammals and insects have an almost identical gene for appendage growth. Of course, the evidence can be rationalized by evolutionists who hold a religious devotion to evolution. However, the way I see it if the evidence doesn't fit the theory the way it should, its because the theory is false.

Science has become a joke. I can hardly wait until the general acceptance of evolution is considered the dark age of science.

Quote:

Aren't you trying to put science away in a box to be able to ignore it even easier? It's tough to understand your behavior, but maybe it's because you already know better and don't what to give up on wishful thoughts? I'm not out to offend you by saying all this, I'm just trying to understand, which I can't ...

That's because you're going about this all wrong. To you, it doesn't matter what the evidence says, evolution is true. So instead of critically examining evolution with an open mind, you decide its true, and then try and figure out why anyone else would disagree. But that's ok, I'm not here to fix you, because other people will see your behavior and how lame evolution is and you'll help my cause by posting the way you are.

Posted By: jcl

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/02/06 16:45

Hmm. This was a lengthy post, but if I sum up all your evidence against whale evolution, it comes down to the following 6 arguments:

1. There is no scientist who is 400 million years old.

2. The Pakicetus fossil does not look like a whale.

3. It was not complete.

4. It could have been a fake.

5. It was a land animal, while the whale is a water animal.

6. I don't trust scientists.

I hope I didn't overloook an argument. If I'm allowed a little comment, Pakicetus lived 50 million years ago, not 400 million, and it was probably amphibious, not a land animal. As to the other arguments, who am I to argue?

A little more detailed explanation of whale evolution for people who might be interested:

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/02/06 18:31

Quote:

1. There is no scientist who is 400 million years old.

It was a joke. And I know that the evolution of the whale doesn't extend that far back, but if I was trying to be accurate, I also wouldn't be making comments about ancient scientists.

Quote:

2. The Pakicetus fossil does not look like a whale.

Its called the earliest whale, when its obviously a hyena-like land animal. My point is that evolution is so dumb that evolutionists can't help but make themselves look stupid by calling one of the most un whale-like animals 'the earliest whale.'

Quote:

3. It was not complete.

That's right. Evolutionists are infamous for the misinterpretation of partial fossils. For instance the pig's tooth that they thought was early man. Another example being pakicetus having fin like appendages and swimming through the water much like a whale. Then it turns out its a terrestrial four-legged animal. Then the filed and stained skull that was used as proof of evolution for 50 years before they finally realized it was a hoax. The archaeoraptor that some magazine paid something like $50,000 for until they realized it was also a hoax. The lack of transitional fossils over the last 150 years has made evolutionists desperate to find anything, otherwise everything they've devoted their lives to is worthless.

One of the major problems is that they lack a hip bone and most of the spine. So they imagined in the rest of the creature as being low to the ground, based only on part of its legs. I wouldn't be surprised if a more complete fossil find made them revise their whole thinking on that one (which is exactly what happened with pakicetus if the information I read is correct...in that case they had part of a skull and imagined a sea creature). Its not like it would be the first time.

Quote:

4. It could have been a fake.

I must have said something that made you think this is what I meant. It was probably just bad communication on my part. I don't think any of these fossils are fake. If they're all real, it still does little for whale evolution.

Quote:

5. It was a land animal, while the whale is a water animal.

In that diagram I showed you, the first three are clearly designed for land locomotion. Then all of the sudden you have a creature that's designed for aqueous locomotion. Where was the transition?

Quote:

6. I don't trust scientists.

I trust scientists. I think they really believe they've discovered whale evolution, and I trust that they believe they have. What I don't trust is their imagination. Its made them the laughing stock of non-evolutionists for years because they don't just keep getting it wrong. They keep getting it WAY wrong and every time we investigate nature further, they either have to keep completely revising things to save their theory, or explain away the evidence as unimportant. I've never seen a job where you can get things wrong over and over and over again and there are no consequences. Well...except politicians of course. Oh, snap!

Quote:

I hope I didn't overloook an argument.

You did. The molecular DNA evidence links whales with hippos, camels, pigs, etc. There is no fossil evidence of this link. If you believe the DNA evidence, then the fossil record is strangely silent on whale evolution.

I also made a mild objection to them resizing the skeletal evidence to make it look like these animals line up nice and neat, like its an unbroken line. The fact of the matter is even assuming these are peices to the puzzle, evolutionists are missing way more peices than they're willing to let on.

Quote:

Pakicetus lived 50 million years ago, not 400 million, and it was probably amphibious, not a land animal.

I know it didn't live that long ago.

I'm not scientist, and I don't claim that this is a scientific argument. But if you had to guess if this animal was amphibious or completely terrestrial, what would you say?

I think the idea of it being amphibious comes from their guess that it had fin-like appendages and the like before we discovered a more complete skeleton. Here's an illustration of the animal before we had more evidence.

That's from a creationist website, of course, but it shows you how individual animals actually can evolve when you just put in a whole lot of imagination. Look! The pakicetus evolved right before our eyes.

If my arguments seem semi-amateur, its only because I was purposely avoiding any creationist literature on this one. I just wanted to voice my own personal objections to whale evolution without being 'tainted' by any outside creationist sources just yet.

But as long as I'm here, here's a comparison of the reconstructed ambulocetus and what they actually found.

If it did have much bigger hind legs, it might have a hard time walking. But based on the BBC diagram it looks like it wouldn't be that bad. However, their fossil looks just slightly different from the other picture in the forelimbs. Kind of a strange animal. But! Even given their interpretation, going from ambulocetus to a whale-like animal seen in my diagram just below it is a huge jump. I would think that actual transition would be in between those two. I mean, having what appears to be fully developed legs, and then completely losing the hind legs (for the genital anchors) and having fully formed fins seems like quite an extensive change.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/03/06 05:20

Quote:

Its called the earliest whale, when its obviously a hyena-like land animal. My point is that evolution is so dumb that evolutionists can't help but make themselves look stupid by calling one of the most un whale-like animals 'the earliest whale.'

This doesnt follow at all, and all you succeed in doing is making yourself look dumb--especially when it's clear you haven't the slightest idea how evolutionary science is done, and why scientists make such statements.

It is called an early whale not because it "looks" like a whale, but that scientists can find certain "basal" traits in the fossil, from which certain traits shared by ALL subsequent whales are "derived".

This is how evolutionary "trees" are now developed, and often more properly called "cladograms" because they use something known as cladistic ananlysis. This allows a researcher to organize species by phylogenetic trees, based on only "derived" characteristics.

This means that even if an animal may look very similar to another, if its features can not be shown to have been derived from it, it cant be descended from it. Thus we know that a homo sapiens is not descended from a gorilla, yet they both share derived characteristics that show they both descended from a common ancestor.

This is the science of evolutionary biology and phylogeny, and you are advised to familiarize yourself with it before attacking it ad infinitum.

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/03/06 14:08

Cartoon time again, boys and girls!

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/03/06 18:07

UM??? wtf? Am I the only one to notice that Irish Farmer, who has come to the forum and launched these countless creationist threads, has appears to have not once posted a single non-creationist message on forum, nor anything remotely involving game studio?

This is a community of game developers and game development hobbyists.

It's a little weird to have nearly a hundred posts, all about creationism, and nothing about gamestudio.

Something does not add up.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/03/06 22:15

Quote:

It is called an early whale not because it "looks" like a whale, but that scientists can find certain "basal" traits in the fossil, from which certain traits shared by ALL subsequent whales are "derived".

Well....I guess pakicetus has bones, and so do whales. So...why not?

Just because they have some 'basal' traits, doesn't mean that automatically makes the sequence sensicle. For instance. From ambulocetus the whales had to completely lose hindlegs without evidence, grow seven times as large, reduce the forearms, lengthen the spine, so on and so forth. There's no evidence of any of this. You expect me to believe its true just because it fits with your pre-conceieved notion of how life develops?

Quote:

This is how evolutionary "trees" are now developed, and often more properly called "cladograms" because they use something known as cladistic ananlysis. This allows a researcher to organize species by phylogenetic trees, based on only "derived" characteristics.

Putting scientific terms on idiocy doesn't make it any smarter.

It would work if any of these were actually good transitions. There's a HUGE leap between ambulocetus and that whale like creature who's name I forget.

Quote:

This is the science of evolutionary biology and phylogeny, and you are advised to familiarize yourself with it before attacking it ad infinitum.

Coming up with imaginary stories is great. But I'm not attacking the science itself, I'm attacking the whale tree. And you still have yet to address why the DNA evidence doesn't back it up. It seems your lineage is worthless.

Quote:

UM??? wtf? Am I the only one to notice that Irish Farmer, who has come to the forum and launched these countless creationist threads, has appears to have not once posted a single non-creationist message on forum, nor anything remotely involving game studio?

You missed me many months ago. I helped people with gstudio problems and asked a few questions myself. I came for the software, but I'm staying for the debate.

How many times do I have to tell you why those cartoons are strawmen before you stop posting them?

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/03/06 23:28

Quote:

You expect me to believe its true just because it fits with your pre-conceieved notion of how life develops?

Not at all. I expect you to make a rational choice based on evidence. Sicentists dont make such claims without good reason. Could they be wrong? Sure, but you havent shown in any way that they are wrong; you've just proven that you don't understand the science involved, that's all.

Quote:

Putting scientific terms on idiocy doesn't make it any smarter.

That's abot the most idiotic comment you've made here. You completely ignore the explanation and just dismiss without even attempting to understand it? Do you have any idea what "derived" means? It means that the trait must have come form a specifc earlier form, and is not a convergence. This can be determined using a variety of means. Either way, you cant just dismiss the whole concept with your ignorant glibness and expect it carry any weight. You are only proving how foolish creationists are.

Quote:

Coming up with imaginary stories is great. But I'm not attacking the science itself, I'm attacking the whale tree. And you still have yet to address why the DNA evidence doesn't back it up. It seems your lineage is worthless.

Again you just dismiss the evidence and the methods...You can't get usable DNA material from most fossils, so what is your comment related to?

Quote:

those cartoons are strawmen

Since microevolution is good evidence in favor of macroevolution, I think its relevant.

However, I dont think there is much need to post cartoons in this forum...

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/04/06 00:05

>those cartoons are strawmen

Yeah, cartoons aren't at all relevant here, since we are talking about a goofy fictional past where men and dinosaurs were living together. WilLLlllMmmmAAA!!

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/04/06 06:39

Quote:

Not at all. I expect you to make a rational choice based on evidence. Sicentists dont make such claims without good reason. Could they be wrong? Sure, but you havent shown in any way that they are wrong; you've just proven that you don't understand the science involved, that's all.

I understand, they saw something in common between all of these animals. I see those things in common too, and it would almost look convincing. Except looking at the nice neat line that the BBC presents, between two of the fossils there's a jump in size. The whale like creature is 7x bigger than ambulocetus. Furthermore, ambulocetus still has fully formed legs. You may as well put a puppy in front of my face and compare it to a dolphin and then ask me, "Why can't you just see the obvious truth." The obvious truth is that maybe they have a few things in common, but this entire fossil looks like a joke upon closer examination.

I may not be a scientist, but when an animal loses legs, reduces other legs, grows fins, becomes exponentially larger without leaving a trace, I have to ask why you're so convinced.

But more to the point, if your best argument against what I'm saying here is basically a drawn out version of, "Well, don't you believe the scientists? I mean, c'mon! Scientists!" then its kind of hard to have an actual discussion.

Quote:

Do you have any idea what "derived" means?

Yes, it means if the fossils make a good mosaic, you can use them as quick visual example in place of actual evidence. Oh yeah, some of them don't fit together very well, so let's resize them. And then....let's hope no one notices the huge morphological change between two of those fossils. Because their skulls have similar shapes, so that's what matters.

Quote:

You can't get usable DNA material from most fossils, so what is your comment related to?

But if you knew animals along the lines of hippos and camels had to be in the lineage (probably as a seperate branch), you would expect this would be reflected in the fossil evidence. There's no link between the whale's fossil ancestors, and what we see in modern biology and genetics. In other words, the line that includes hippos and camels and such, does not include whales.

Quote:

Since microevolution is good evidence in favor of macroevolution, I think its relevant.

Creationists don't worry about antibiotic resistance. Its only proof of evolution in the mind of an evolutionist. In fact, the unwillingness of any amateur evolutionist to let go of microbial resistance is rather telling of their complete lack of understanding of genetics, and the fact that they really have nothing.

Quote:

Yeah, cartoons aren't at all relevant here, since we are talking about a goofy fictional past where men and dinosaurs were living together. WilLLlllMmmmAAA!!

I've asked the question about three times now and have yet to receive an answer. Why would dinosaurs and man not have been able to coexist, and can you give me a reason why without making some kind of pop-culture reference?

Quote:

First it's, "it's based upon assumptions", then "it's pseudoscience", then it's "your going off topic", now it's "you're not understanding the bible on purpose", what's next?

Well, most of these aren't universal arguments. If you said, "Antibiotic resistance proves evolution," and I responded with, "You just don't understand the bible," it would hardly apply.

Quote:

It's obvious you don't even fully read my posts ... I already made clear I was talking about spiritual blindness as well. Metaphorical or not, that doesn't correct the error made in the reasoning.

Fair enough, it just didn't sound that way.

Quote:

What if we would say that there are more white scientists than black scientists and that this thus makes us superior scientists? Yes, this makes just as little sense as your argument. It's not quantity, but quality that counts. Man, you could even come up with an argument that scientists who's favorite color is blue are more often right than scientists who's favorite color is red, it still doesn't make them superior scientists because of their favorite color, even if it's based upon 'facts' ...

And...so when your evolutionists friends do this, its ok?

Quote:

Where's your evidence for A: the existence of your God then and

What does God have to do with evolution or abiogenesis? Well, I guess I can see what that has to do with abiogenesis. But abiogenesis doesn't magically become possible just because I can't prove God exists.

Quote:

B: the proof that scientists are 'guessing with no proof at all'.

It was just a stab. I think they're using 'evidence', I just think the evidence can be interpreted differently. I critique the evidence and the only answer I get is that I'm wrong because scientists are always right.

Quote:

Now, tell me why you believe in God WITHOUT any evidence...

That assumes I believe there is no evidence. I'm not a fideist or however you spell it.

Quote:

Your faith is based upon faith, isn't it? In other words you accept it no matter what... Why?

I accept God no matter what (even if I had conclusive evidence that the bible got creation all wrong) for the same reason you reject God no matter what.

You have no evidence that God doesn't exist. No proof that there is no God. So why should I even think your position is more valid than mine?

Quote:

Your evidence is none-existent, so why don't you focus on that, instead of trying to come up with 'things evolution can't explain'?

"Your critique of evolution is making me uncomfortable, let's talk about what you believe." That's why.

And because I see no reason to. Is there anything I can say to you to make you accept Jesus as your savior? Ok, then. I don't feel the need to talk about it.

Quote:

Evolution can't explain everything, nobody claimed this.

If your defense of evolution is that it can't explain everything, that's pretty weak. I should use that for God from now on. I don't think I would get very far with that one.

Quote:

Does this make your belief without proof or logic, but only one big assumption more true? Lol, no, not at all. Where's the logic, eey?

I never said evolution being false proves God exists. This sounds suspiciously like projection. But maybe I'm projecting my own projection.

But seriously. If evolution is true, I'll know God exists. If evolution is false, I'll know God exists, and that He's not cruel, wasteful, and weak. Either way, my faith remains untested.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/04/06 06:50

Quote:

What does God have to do with evolution or abiogenesis? Well, I guess I can see what that has to do with abiogenesis. But abiogenesis doesn't magically become possible just because I can't prove God exists.

Typical response. You answer to a question with another question and you say very much while saying nothing at the same time. I am so tired to read those long texts that say nothing at the end. I have no idea where you get your energy to daily post so much stuff while saying nothing.

At the end I would be happy when you dismiss Matt_AufderHeide so that he can go back to design the Sphere2 plugin. This would really change the world of so much users here. But responding to Irish_Farmer seems to be like running into a big stone wall.

Just my own way of thinking since I admire the Sphere plugin way more than this discussion here

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/04/06 07:11

I have noticed that the quality of your objections and arguments have dropped off, until now they seem so obviously poorly thought out and blatantly false its almost cruel to go on. But I could say:
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?

Quote:

I understand, they saw something in common between all of these animals. I see those things in common too, and it would almost look convincing......it means if the fossils make a good mosaic, you can use them as quick visual example in place of actual evidence

I dont think you do understand; its not just something "in common", its a set of traits that appear first in the ealiest fossil, and then appear only in the specific line shown subsequently. The traits are specific, and are observed by measuring and comparing shapes and so on. The comparisons arent just made between single features; there are likely sets of specific points of interest that are always common.

Your objection to the size of the total animal is weak, becasue size is very rarely dependent on bone structure, and can vary dramatically even within a closely related family. For instance, dolphins and blue whales are clearly related closely, but dolphins are only a few feet long, whereas blue whales are more than hundred feet long.

Quote:

There's no link between the whale's fossil ancestors, and what we see in modern biology and genetics. In other words, the line that includes hippos and camels and such, does not include whales.

I'm not not sure where you get your evidence, and how you can make such a claim. This is is muddled thinking.

First, hippos are the closest known living ancestors to the whales--this doesnt mean they are in a direct lineage to whales. I'm not sure what your objection really is, because as said before, we can't get genetic materials from fossils.

Quote:

Creationists don't worry about antibiotic resistance. Its only proof of evolution in the mind of an evolutionist.

Again, your point is made wihtout any attempt to show why this is wrong. Whether or not you "worry" about it, its certainly showns that natural selection can operate on organism, in the way Darwin predicted.

This seems like strong evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection. It's odd that you argue that evidence in favor of evolution is *not* evidence in favor of evolution....without even showing why.

Quote:

Why would dinosaurs and man not have been able to coexist

There is no real reason that I know of that would prevent such a coexistence as such. But since all the evidence points to the conclusion that they didn't coexist, so why should be we beleive otherwise? No higher mammals seems to have come into existence until after the dinosaurs died out. There is no reason to suppose that hominins existed more than a few million years ago.

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/04/06 10:55

>At the end I would be happy when you dismiss Matt_AufderHeide so that he can
>go back to design the Sphere2 plugin. This would really change the world of so
>much users here. But responding to Irish_Farmer seems to be like running into
>a big stone wall.Just my own way of thinking since I admire the Sphere plugin
>way more than this discussion here

Yeah ! ! ! ! ! Totally!

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/04/06 18:41

Quote:

Typical response. You answer to a question with another question and you say very much while saying nothing at the same time. I am so tired to read those long texts that say nothing at the end. I have no idea where you get your energy to daily post so much stuff while saying nothing.

This is a topic about evolution. When you guys run out of answers, I'm not going to let you change the subject or use an appeal to authority in place of a debate. If you guys don't have an answer, or you don't feel like continuing the line of discussion, the only way its going to end is if you stop talking, or come up with a response, or admit you don't have an answer.

Quote:

At the end I would be happy when you dismiss Matt_AufderHeide so that he can go back to design the Sphere2 plugin. This would really change the world of so much users here. But responding to Irish_Farmer seems to be like running into a big stone wall.

I'm not making Matt do anything he doesn't want to do.

Quote:

Just my own way of thinking since I admire the Sphere plugin way more than this discussion here

If you didn't post anything in this thread, no one would know the difference.

Quote:

I dont think you do understand; its not just something "in common", its a set of traits that appear first in the ealiest fossil, and then appear only in the specific line shown subsequently. The traits are specific, and are observed by measuring and comparing shapes and so on. The comparisons arent just made between single features; there are likely sets of specific points of interest that are always common.

Ok, you seem pretty sure of this. What are these convincing traits found in common between the terrestrial animals and the whale-like animals? Just simple examples, you don't need to go in depth. (I'll give you a hint, shape of the middle ear, and also teeth, scientists admit everything else between whales and land mammals are so different its hard to tell).

Quote:

Your objection to the size of the total animal is weak, becasue size is very rarely dependent on bone structure, and can vary dramatically even within a closely related family. For instance, dolphins and blue whales are clearly related closely, but dolphins are only a few feet long, whereas blue whales are more than hundred feet long.

Ok, the ambulocetus fossil is about 7 feet or 2 meters. Basilosaurus, that whale like creature, is about 70 feet or 21 meters.

Quote:

For instance, dolphins and blue whales are clearly related closely, but dolphins are only a few feet long, whereas blue whales are more than hundred feet long.

So there's no transition in size and bone structure that explains the difference between a four legged animal and giant swimming mammal, and that's ok because dolphins and whales are closely related but are different in size? That's a pretty weak explanation.

Ambulocetus presumably was built to walk on land. Its hard to say since we're missing what looks like 90% (at least) of its spine and all of its hip. Then basilosaurus is completely built for aquatic motion. Where's the transition?

Quote:

I'm not not sure where you get your evidence, and how you can make such a claim. This is is muddled thinking.

Quote:

Recent cetaceans [modern whales and dolphins] are very different to other mammals, so another question that has dogged this field is that of which group of mammals contains their closest relatives--which is their "sister group"? The cranial and skeletal anatomy of cetaceans is highly modified compared with that of land mammals, and fossils of early cetaceans are so rare and generally incomplete, that the affinities of the group are difficult to establish. On the basis of tooth and ear morphology, palaeontologists contend that cetaceans are most closely related to the mesonychians--a group of extinct ungulates from the early Tertiary. But molecular biologists favour hippos--which form one of the families of modern even-toed ungulates (artiodactyls)--as the sister group.

Muizon, Nature, Vol. 413, 20 September 2001, �Walking with whales�, page 260

In other words, the skulls and skeletons are so different from land mammals that there its difficult to draw a clear line. They assume its because evolution changed whales too much to be able to figure it out. I assume its because whales didn't evolve.

You'll also notice the problem here. Based on teeth and ears, they must have evolved from the wolfish mesonychians (which lead to pakicetus etc). However, DNA evidence suggests they evolved from the same ancestors as modern hippos and cows and camels and so on (artiodactyl). It seems the fossils and the DNA are having a hard time figuring out what happened.

Quote:

Thewissen and colleagues' discovery allows us to address both of these problems. The newly found fossils include several skulls and postcranial bones from two early pakicetid species--which, it seems, had the head of a primitive cetacean (as indicated by the ear region) and the body of an artiodactyl. All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and it is likely that they would have been thought of as some primitive terrestrial artiodactyl [goat-like animal or even toed ungulate] if they had been found without their skulls. Many of the fossils' features--including the length of the cervical vertebrae, the relatively rigid articulations of the lumbar vertebrae, and the long, slender limb bones--indicate that the animals were runners, moving with only their digits touching the ground.

Same source.

In other words, we determined their relationship based on the middle ear. But if you chose other 'basal' traits you could draw other radically different lines if you wanted to.

Quote:

I'm not sure what your objection really is, because as said before, we can't get genetic materials from fossils.

Of course, but if you combine the fossil record with DNA relationships of modern animals, the lineage becomes blurred, as in this case where you either have to ignore the DNA evidence, or the fossil evidence. Let me know if you still don't catch that, because I may not be giving all the details.

Quote:

Again, your point is made wihtout any attempt to show why this is wrong. Whether or not you "worry" about it, its certainly showns that natural selection can operate on organism, in the way Darwin predicted.

I can't even count the number of times I've explained by bacterial 'evolution' isn't evolution at all. I'll give a quick recap, since you seem to have forgotten. Bacteria can exchange genetic information via plasmids, etc. Virii can carry genetic data back and forth. Mutations can switch off control (for instance, losing control of enzyme production, which would normally make you less fit because you're wasting resources) etc. Otherwise, resistance is already programmed into the population, and those who don't have resistance are just killed off. That's selection, which has the effect of loss.

This doesn't involve new information, and certainly doesn't conclude that evolution is possibly in the slightest.

Quote:

There is no real reason that I know of that would prevent such a coexistence as such. But since all the evidence points to the conclusion that they didn't coexist, so why should be we beleive otherwise? No higher mammals seems to have come into existence until after the dinosaurs died out. There is no reason to suppose that hominins existed more than a few million years ago.

Ok then, besides the accepted evolutionary timeline, there's no reason it isn't possible.

Quote:

Why did you ask that question?

Because when I made a joke about evolution and abiogenesis having no proof you asked what my proof of God is. Let's use an example dialogue to illustrate why this makes no sense, if you don't mind.

"UFOs abducted me and put a probe in my butt."

"What proof do you have of this?"

"What proof do you have that God exists?!"

Yeah....

Quote:

It has enough to do with it, but you feel to uncomfortable about the subject "i can't proof God exists" i guess.

I don't feel the need to distract from the topic at hand. I must be doing something right, because otherwise you might have an actual response.

Quote:

It's a freaking miracle a large amount of people still believe in God, as if he's fact, eventhough there's absolutely NO evidence.

Oh, I see. I was a fool not to believe whale evolution made sense, because there's no reason to believe in God. What was I thinking.

Quote:

You claimed before that scientists just 'guessed around a bit with no proofs', I said, take a look at yourself first .. Where's the proof for God ("guessing withouth proof" ) and where's your proof for 'scientists guessing without any proof to back it up'?

Your defense of whale evolution or any other scientific nonsense can't be, "Well, what about your proof of God?" But I don't really need to keep restating the obvious over and over.

Quote:

That's what I said, you started about abiogenesis and evolution in your very first reply on this comment, I wasn't even talking about that.

You quoted me on abiogenesis and evolution.

Quote:

If you would understand basic geology and would understand the fossils that have been found, then this would be clear already. Even when you don't 'trust' the absolute dating methods, relative dating also points out that it's clearly impossible. There hasn't been a single human fossil found in the same fossil strata as any random dinosaur.

The question was hypothetical. Having nothing to do with fossil evidence and only to do with wondering what would stop it from happening.

Quote:

My position is more valid, because I do not believe in things as if they are facts when there's no evidence.

Another way of saying, "My position is automatically valid because you believe in God without proof."

You disbelieve God without proof.

Your position doesn't make any more sense than mine. You can't prove God doesn't exist, so its a possibility. There are many reasons to believe in God. My ancestors believed He exists, there's a book with prophecies that have come unquestionably true, there's a creation that's consistent with the God of the bible, there are consistent accounts of God written by different people over thousands of years, and out of all other religions christianity is the most scientifically consistent, excluding 'scientific' stories of long, long ago. Its been consistent with all reproducable, testable, and falsifiable sciences.

Quote:

It's simply stupid to believe in a flying spagetti monster from mars, when there's nothing at all, not even something slightly pointing in that direction.

Yeah, nothing at all, like say a perfectly ordered universe that almost seems completely suited for life, and even exists in the first place. But that's another topic.

Quote:

A book is a rather unreliable source,

And your own internal psychological workings are more reliable? Or did you read somewhere that there isn't any proof of God? What makes that more reliable.

Quote:

Again, just empty words, no backing up with facts. Put your money where your mouth is and show us that they even act like this please.

"All scientists agree with evolution."

Quote:

It's not even needed as a defensive argument, but it is a fact nonetheless.

So you don't have to defend whale evolution or anything else, because evolution doesn't have all the answers. It needs to have all the answers or its useless.

Quote:

I hardly believe you would want to convince me, but even then if you really COULD, then what in the world would have stopped you from comming with the overwhelming evidence and crush all of our arguments in favor of evolution?

I never claimed to have overwhelming evidence. Besides we're not arguing over evidence, we're arguing over suppositions.

Quote:

I expected the evidence right about here as a reply,

Well, then I'm happy to disappoint you. This isn't a topic of religion or faith. Its a topic on evolution. I expected an actual rebuttle to any of my objections about a page ago, but I have yet to see any.

Quote:

If creationism is false, would it prove that God doesn't exist?

That's the one problem with creationism. It isn't falsifiable, in the sense that there's so much evidence for it, all you can do is try and rationalize the evidence in favor of some other idea like say a superstitious belief in chance, or some other nonsense.

Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/04/06 23:29

Goddarn it

When will people get it through their heads that evolution is holy. Reality is holy. Fiction is holy. You are surrounded by something greater than the word God can even begin to define. The fabric of existence, the laws of nature, the love and spark of life in people and the world around us, this is a living, throbbing, wonderful place and many bright people call this beautiful .

It's so stupid, this bickering about creationism, trying to model the basis of life from a 2000 year old document.

This whole universe is a work of art. It's our job to live in it and appreciate it. Part of showing our respect to whatever forces created it is to reach out by philosophy, science, spirituality to grow out into it, to learn and observe like a child does, because that's what we are, we're confused little children looking around trying to make sense of this world in which we have manifested into somehow...

Our curiousity and inquisitiveness are our best gift, we reach out and search the heavens and the genome and down to the subatomic particles, to abstract quantum and string theories, to alternate realities in fiction and computing machines, we are doing our service to the forces (god if you want) which brought us into this glorious universe.

But seriously, this thread is pointless. I don't even know why I am posting this.

Creationism is cheap, it's tacky. Because it is a quick and stupid answer to the most glorious question we have.

This question is the fuel which stokes the geist of humanity. When we accept a stupid, one-dimensional answer of our caveman ancestors, we are not fulfilling our obligation to the forces that brought us here.

Close your eyes and you'll miss out on all the wonder.

Sadly, some people are incapable of appreciating wonder.

(whoo i channeled some william blake + carl sagan)

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/04/06 23:40

A big amen here.

The world is crazy when it comes to stubborness and disbelief in modern technology, which is fine though, so why don't we let the facts speak for themselves, without jumping to odd conclusions based upon a 2000 year old and likely unreliable document without using our eyes.

Quote:

The fabric of existence, the laws of nature, the love and spark of life in people and the world around us, this is a living, throbbing, wonderful place and many bright people call this beautiful .

Absolutely and I really don't get why people can't appreciate and worship this beauty, instead of some invented Godly being who might not even exist or might not even be responsible for all this.

Cheers

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/05/06 07:02

wow, Jetpack_Monkey: This is a fantastic statement. I never could say it so good but it meets may ideas 100 percent. Thanks for posting this.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/05/06 08:42

Well, this may sound nice calling the universe a "work of art" but it is meaningless. The universe is no such thing. It IS, that's all.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/05/06 08:58

Yes. Of course it is not art. It is. And all resulting events like evolution are just following. They happened when certain circumstances met each other. All that happened by accident. So there is no meaning nor sense. It just is as it is. We can try to understand or just leave it

But most scientists try to understand and delivered more and more proofs over the years. So I cannot understand any point of creationism that is based on pure assumptions without any proofs at all. They attempt to appear scientific but they fail for several reasons. Most important reason is the lack of well-founded theories.

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/05/06 16:43

As beautiful as it all is, there is something which is not so beautiful--human wickedness and the judgement that is prepared for all those who dont repent.

If all life was walking around like a child looking at all the wonder of the universe it would be so nice, but it is a fantasy. Real people deal with sickeness, death,lonliness,injustice,poverty and a multitude of other problems everyday.

You can blather on about the universe all you want, but the reality is that the wickedness of our hearts will not go unpunished. Man is a destitue, rebellious, animal in need of redemption and restoration. Denying it is futile. Death and judgement are the only realities. Our lives are just a small vapor in the light of eternity.

Posted By: MathewAllen

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/05/06 19:03

Quote:

As beautiful as it all is, there is something which is not so beautiful--human wickedness and the judgement that is prepared for all those who dont repent.

If all life was walking around like a child looking at all the wonder of the universe it would be so nice, but it is a fantasy. Real people deal with sickeness, death,lonliness,injustice,poverty and a multitude of other problems everyday.

You can blather on about the universe all you want, but the reality is that the wickedness of our hearts will not go unpunished. Man is a destitue, rebellious, animal in need of redemption and restoration. Denying it is futile. Death and judgement are the only realities. Our lives are just a small vapor in the light of eternity.

Oh noes! Zeus is gonna smite me with lightning! Good thing I'm wearing my tinfoil hat so he can't read my heathenous thoughts! wait... that's the aliens isn't it... hmm.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/05/06 19:08

Quote:

You can blather on about the universe all you want, but the reality is that the wickedness of our hearts will not go unpunished. Man is a destitue, rebellious, animal in need of redemption and restoration. Denying it is futile. Death and judgement are the only realities. Our lives are just a small vapor in the light of eternity.

Oooh, time for some old-fashioned Old Testament fire and brimstone. You know what you can do with your redemption?

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/06/06 23:24

Quote:

It must be me, but that's not what I read in that text. Furthermore they only said it has features of both species families, doesn't this simply indicate a species in TRANSITION? I think you've ripped this out of it's context too.

"which, it seems, had the head of a primitive cetacean (as indicated by the ear region)"

"All the postcranial [meaning roughly 'after skull'] bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and it is likely that they would have been thought of as some primitive terrestrial artiodactyl [goat-like animal or even toed ungulate] if they had been found without their skulls."

In other words, you could call them whales based on their middle ear. Or you could call them land animals based on JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Quote:

doesn't this simply indicate a species in TRANSITION?

Ok, that's a belief in the unseen. We haven't seen a bear become a whale, or any transition along those lines, so why wouldn't that suggest that it doesn't happen?

Quote:

I think you've ripped this out of it's context too.

Well unless the next sentence is something like "...Just kidding! We just wanted to write that so that IDers could take us out of context." Or something that completely contradicts what they wrote.

You could look it up.

Quote:

Look at present human species and compare their length, you will see that it can vary a lot

We don't vary from 5 feet to 50 feet, though.

Quote:

so in this case 'size doesn't really matter'

Why don't we find any transitions somewhere between the 7 and 70 feet or 2 and 21 meters? Why don't we find animals that look like ambulocetus but with reduced legs? Or like basilosaurus, but with vestigial legs left over from when they were ambulocetus.

Quote:

Off course I'll be happy to admit that the differences are big, but from the perspective of evolution it's not more than logical considering the animals there habitat at that time.

No offense, but I can't make out what you're saying here.

Quote:

Yep, incomplete fossils do give scientists a hard time, but that's why they look at what IS available, not what's missing and start guessing around.

I've already shown you that this isn't true. They constantly guess what animals look like (based on their evolutionary presupposition) which inevitably leads to embarrassment. Like say thinking pakicetus was a water-like animal when in fact it looks like some kind of hyena type thing.

Quote:

If e.g. I would infact have a probe implanted we could simply find out by searching

A probe doesn't have to stay in the butt.

But anyway, if their response was to question my belief in God, instead of proving there was a probe, then I would say my example still stands.

Knowing people nowadays, I still wouldn't believe it if there was a device in their butt because people make a living putting devices in their butt.

Let's make another conversation to illustrate my point. Let's say someone is trying to prove the existence of alien spacecraft in earth's atmosphere.

"I know there are alien spacecraft in the sky."

"How do you know that?"

"Well, if there were alien spacecraft in the sky, wouldn't we see lights in the sky?"

"Of course, assuming the spacecraft have lights on them."

"Ok, then. There are lights in the sky right now, I've just proved there are spacecraft."

"I see stars and what appears to be an airplane."

"How can you argue with me? There are lights aren't there?!"

Kind of a ridiculous example, but sufficiently ridiculous to make the fallacy of "ad ridiculum".

Quote:

research and observations -> that's science. You don't except the evidence that this research would give

I really do believe there was a pakicetus animal, and a basilosaurus, and an ambulocetus. I don't believe the unobservable 'theory' that they changed into each other. No one saw it, you can't prove it, so pardon me if I don't believe it. Especially when I think there are inconsistencies, gaps, or ridiculous claims made in the story (like say the middle ear proves a hyena turned into a whale).

Quote:

but on the other hand you do believe in your God for which you've got no evidence at all.

Hm. I won't go into the evidence too much in this thread, but I suppose the main reason I believe in God isn't because I think there's irrefutable evidence. I have a consciousness of God. To me, the choice isn't whether or not to believe He exists. Its whether or not I'm going to reject Him in favor of living the life my sinful nature wants to live. Frankly, while some sinful things are extremely tempting, I'd much rather forgo them in favor of allowing God to use my life to bring glory to Him (this forum notwithstanding

).

Since you'll never be able to prove to me that He doesn't exist, we'll have to agree to disagree on God. Either way, since God's existence doesn't disprove evolution, and since evolution doesn't disprove God's existence. I don't see how it matters. But! I'm starting to get into the idea of apologetics, so if you want to discuss my belief in God and whether or not its rational or plausible, then feel free to start a new thread. I won't avoid the subject in a thread based around God.

Quote:

Evolution theory -> evidence in favor of the evolution theory has been found.

But evidence has been found that contradicts evolution. So I submit that if ALL the evidence doesn't line up with evolution, it can't be a reasonable explanation for reality.

Quote:

but you do believe something when there 0 evidence for it. That's S T R A N G E.

We should start a thread on this, because I'd like you to answer this question. Do you believe that God does not exist?

Quote:

When looking for similarities, it's the similarities you'll be looking for. What's inconsistent in this method?

Nothing, its a good way to find out what traits are found in common with different animals. But when you focus on the ear and teeth of an animal that has nothing else in common with an animal, that's kind of stupid. That's what they do with pakicetus. I can understand why they thought it was a whale ancestor when they ONLY had a skull. But once they found the rest of the body and realized it was a running land mammal, but they held onto it, that was just plain stupid.

Quote:

It's not different, and thus it's hard to tell wether or not they are related, it's different as in that's where the similarities can not be found and too much of the species has evolved/changed already.

Which makes evolution a pseudoscience. What animals have in common proves evolution. When they look nothing like each other, its because of evolution.

Quote:

When will people get it through their heads that evolution is holy. Reality is holy. Fiction is holy.

If evolution is holy, then that means its become a religion for you. You will never listen to any evidence to the contrary because 'change over time' has become your deity. The rest of what you said is a parallel to some neo-pagan religion.

Quote:

You are surrounded by something greater than the word God can even begin to define.

Nature will eventually wind down, and pass away into a dark motionless nothing. That doesn't sound any better than the creator of nature.

Quote:

The fabric of existence, the laws of nature, the love and spark of life in people and the world around us, this is a living, throbbing, wonderful place and many bright people call this beautiful .

It is beautiful, and some people would rather give credit to the creator than the creation. But! Since this isn't about religion...I have to ask. What does it matter if the creation is beautiful? How does that prove evolution? Unless your point is just to express the fact that you don't understand why people believe in something better than a universe that ultimately won't matter.

Quote:

It's so stupid, this bickering about creationism, trying to model the basis of life from a 2000 year old document.

No, let's model it around a 147 year old 'document'.

Much of the bible is older than 2000 years anyway.

Quote:

Our curiousity and inquisitiveness are our best gift, we reach out and search the heavens and the genome and down to the subatomic particles, to abstract quantum and string theories, to alternate realities in fiction and computing machines, we are doing our service to the forces (god if you want) which brought us into this glorious universe.

Yes, which is why early theistic scientists said, "Science brings man closer to God." Science is a good thing.

Quote:

Creationism is cheap, it's tacky.

Good point. How could anyone believe creation if its cheap and tacky? What astounding wisdom.

Quote:

Because it is a quick and stupid answer to the most glorious question we have.

Evolution says a hyena turned into a whale, because its middle ear is shaped similarly. But creation is stupid.

Quote:

Sadly, some people are incapable of appreciating wonder.

I'm going to quote from the new issue of National Geographic that I just got the other day.

"But evolution doesn't evolve towards anything; it's a messy affair, full of diversity and dead ends."

Jennifer Ackerman, National Geographic, July 2006, "The Downside of Upright", Page 142

In other words, its a senseless method of acheiving the best possible result of random tinkering. Its fueled by destruction of the weak in favor of the strong, and its 'messy.'

Hardly what I would call beautiful. I appreciate the beauty that we can see in the world, not fairy tales we come up with so that atheists can have their own creation myth.

Quote:

Absolutely and I really don't get why people can't appreciate and worship this beauty,

Man, you guys have said more about your beliefs than I could have accused you of. For you 'science' and nature is a god. You've basically just stated something that parallels the wiccan belief.

Your beliefs aren't founded on science, they're founded on religious...things.

No one contests that these fossilized animals exist. We just don't jump the gun and say that they turned into each other. You can't show me that they did, so we're not rejecting science, we're rejecting your religious beliefs. That's all.

Quote:

that is based on pure assumptions without any proofs at all.

Creationism is just a rejection of the assumptions. We believe that animals do exist, and that they started existing at some point. Evolution is the assumption. But we're running around in circles here, stating our beliefs and not much else. I just didn't want anyone to think there was a 'confession by silence' or something like that.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/07/06 09:11

Quote:

Evolution says a hyena turned into a whale, because its middle ear is shaped similarly. But creation is stupid.

It will be easy to pick a single scientific paper and tell how stupid it might be. I am sure there are even wrong statements. But evolution theory is much more than only comparing hyena's to whales. And if a theory is wrong then it will be falsified in the future by new evidences and better founded theories. That is the way of science. It is not fixed and can adapt to better knowledge. That is a big difference to your approach.

Because of that it will survive creationism in the future. And do not forget that creationism is only an american phenomen and hopefully will stay in your country.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/07/06 17:49

Quote:

It will be easy to pick a single scientific paper and tell how stupid it might be.

This isn't a single scientific paper. This is the whole evolutionary community's belief on whale evolution.

Quote:

I am sure there are even wrong statements.

Only in the sense that assuming animals evolve is wrong.

Quote:

But evolution theory is much more than only comparing hyena's to whales.

This is just to showcase that evolutionists don't have to be believed, just because they're 'mystical scientists with infallible brains'. They have stupid ideas too.

Quote:

And if a theory is wrong then it will be falsified in the future by new evidences and better founded theories.

Evolution can't be falsified. I wouldn't get excited if they found a human fossil next to a trilobite, because they would have some explanation for it I'm sure.

Like saying trilobites must have survived until recently or some such.

Quote:

That is the way of science. It is not fixed and can adapt to better knowledge.

So then evolution isn't a sure thing. Then why do we keep hearing evolution is a 'fact'?

Scientists aren't weighing out evidence, they're reading the evidence from the perspective of evolution.

Quote:

That is a big difference to your approach.

My approach has simply been to show that evolution is a stupid theory.

Quote:

Because of that it will survive creationism in the future. And do not forget that creationism is only an american phenomen and hopefully will stay in your country.

Its all over europe and australia too. Sorry to say it, but creationism isn't gonna go away. There's a large and growing portion of the scientific community that questions evolution, within which are included atheists. The only option at this point is for evolutionists to marginalize creationists, and use the courts to make sure there is no questioning of evolution.

What's so bad about creationism anyway? We're not trying to get evolution out of the classroom, we just want the evidence that contradicts evolution to be taught too, and the theory of intelligent design ALLOWED (not forced) in the classroom.

One of the arguments that got evolution into the American education system was that the kids 'must hear all theories to gain a better understanding.' The result of hearing all theories is that now only one theory is heard, and any questioning of that theory will lead to a lawsuit. Pathetic.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/07/06 19:50

Quote:

Its all over europe and australia too.

Lol, it's like freaking rabbits, right?

No, but seriously, how do you even think to know this? Have you lived in Australia or Europe and talked to a lot of creationists? Don't hold online pro-religious surveys for holy information please...

There are not many creationists in europe as far as I know. There are quite some religious people, that's true but by far the most do not believe in creation like written in the bible. Infact in some churches they even say evolution is the work of God and say it is/was actually part of the methaphorical creation by God.

Quote:

So then evolution isn't a sure thing. Then why do we keep hearing evolution is a 'fact'?

It's a fact alright, but absolute facts do not exist.

It's specifics and details could very well be falsified contrary to what you think, thus the theory as a whole could be falsified aswell, it's no religion like yours, but science hehhehhe...

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/08/06 04:43

Quote:

Lol, it's like freaking rabbits, right? No, but seriously, how do you even think to know this? Have you lived in Australia or Europe and talked to a lot of creationists? Don't hold online pro-religious surveys for holy information please... There are not many creationists in europe as far as I know. There are quite some religious people, that's true but by far the most do not believe in creation like written in the bible. Infact in some churches they even say evolution is the work of God and say it is/was actually part of the methaphorical creation by God.

I involve myself in creation research through creation Journals, web searches, etc. They have branches in Australia, Europe, and then some countries I can't remember off hand. The branches certainly aren't as large, which is readily apparent, but creation isn't an American phenomenon.

Quote:

It's a fact alright, but absolute facts do not exist. It's specifics and details could very well be falsified contrary to what you think, thus the theory as a whole could be falsified aswell, it's no religion like yours, but science hehhehhe...

Facts can't be falsified. They're always true. It is a fact that the universe exist. We don't have to wonder if we'll discover one day that it does not exist.

Evolution, if called fact, then will be believed to be unfalsifiable. But if its unfalsifiable as an origin science, its also not scientific. Like you said, we have to be able to overturn it if we find new evidence. But if we can do that, then its not a fact.

Certainly, as a story that no one was there to witness, it would be ridiculous to not consider it falsifiable. But it isn't falsifiable. No matter what evidence we find, we can always fit it into the evolutionary worldview. Its happened many times.

The problem evolution has is, it doesn't take very much to make a person skeptical of it. This is why people get all flustered whenever anyone even mentions a discussion of contrary evidence to evolution being taught in schools. They fight it 'tooth and nail.' Kind of like what Matt said. If you can't discuss the problems with a theory, then its become a religious belief. Blah blah blah, etc.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/09/06 11:29

Quote:

If you can't discuss the problems with a theory, then its become a religious belief.

Absolutely. That is what creationism is doing. Science needs some kind of beliefs as well sometimes. But a pure science cannot be founded on top of beliefs. You need evidences otherwise another scientist will falsify you very fast. A lot of scientific knowledge has been falsified. That is no problem for science. It is flexible and it must be otherwise we could not adapt and get clother to the truth.

Creationism is another approach but lacks evidences. So it will not survive. You can repeat all what you repeated here hundrets of times. It will not change this only because of your "charming" words. You simply need scientific evidences.

Yes, you can doubt whatever you like even the evidences of evolution. But you will never find a better evidence except of your faith. Because of that most educated people will not follow this approach. You simply will not find an evidence of a creator, of human bones together with dinosaur bones in some stones and there will be no dog nor cat together with the first amphibian beeings deep in the earth. Nobody never found such an evidence so far and there are so much people here. Every stone has been watched from children, farmers, hunters or scientists. You have barely the slightest chance. It is simply too late to start such a theory

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/09/06 17:27

Quote:

Absolutely. That is what creationism is doing. Science needs some kind of beliefs as well sometimes. But a pure science cannot be founded on top of beliefs. You need evidences otherwise another scientist will falsify you very fast. A lot of scientific knowledge has been falsified. That is no problem for science. It is flexible and it must be otherwise we could not adapt and get clother to the truth.

Evolution is a story. How can you falsify it?

The only way I can even think of is if every possible species was all found in the same fossil strata, but who knows, they might attribute it to 'movement.'

Quote:

It will not change this only because of your "charming" words.

You think I'm charming? Thanks.

Quote:

You simply need scientific evidences.

What scientific evidence is there of evolution?

Creationism by the way isn't so much the frontrunning theory for creationists, intelligent design is. And I still have yet to hear an actual rebuttle to irreducible complexity. Except that the parts can be used for individual purposes (the response to the mousetrap was amusing, saying the clip could be used as a hook, which would only be useful on a device much more complicated than a moustrap). The response has amounted to little more than, "No, you're wrong, they AREN'T irreducibly complex."

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/10/06 11:51

You turn yourself in circles over and over again.

When you do not accept analysing of stones as evidences and when you call all the hard work of scientists and labor assistants as a mere story then I cannot help you anymore

I find this sort of evidences a quite good evidence. Much better than the bible that indeed is a story.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/10/06 17:10

Quote:

When you do not accept analysing of stones as evidences and when you call all the hard work of scientists and labor assistants as a mere story then I cannot help you anymore

I believe the scientific data that these animals lived and died. That's solid scientific evidence. But unless you're going to actually make some kind of claim that can be discussed then I'm done.

A lot of people spend a lot of time coming up with horoscopes, and they work really hard at it. But its still stupid.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/10/06 17:17

Quote:

I believe the scientific data that these animals lived and died. That's solid scientific evidence...

Then this evidence is enough to show that there was never a time where dinosaurs and men lived togethter. That is easy to realize.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/10/06 19:46

Quote:

Then this evidence is enough to show that there was never a time where dinosaurs and men lived togethter. That is easy to realize.

There are bones in the ground. They aren't labelled with a date or a convenient photo and bibliography to tell us how they lived or when they lived. So we scientifically know that they lived....and died.

Posted By: Sebe

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/10/06 20:08

Post deleted by Sebe - he had forgotten that he doesn't want to post here anymore, because he's too much convinced of atheism => he only causes trouble

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/23/06 21:05

Quote:

Infact, they are labeled with a time/date and science has already discovered how to make this visible and understand it, but you seem to not want to understand this, hence your 'these are just bones in the ground' comment.

Unfortunately, there's 'new', peer-reviewed evidence that the radioisotopic decay rates have been accelerated in the past, and that the earth is about 6000 years old. Wonder why you never see anyone do a new article on this? Bias, perhaps? No...not in the American media....that couldn't happen. Hm.

There has always been evidence of a young earth, but this is the most damaging because it once again shows that uniformitarianism is bull. And furthermore vindicates the viewpoint of people like me that have known the evolutionary timelines were based on huge assumptions. Rats (or should I say rates?

)

Quote:

When talking about more absolute dates, our dating methods might indeed still be a bit flawed, however relative dating gives enough evidence already, so that's why absolute dating errors are not important for these kind of conclusions.

And still, those error ranges are getting smaller and smaller with every development step the dating methods go through ...

Yeah, well it doesn't matter anymore. Evolution can't happen in 6000 years, so its a moot point.

If you're wondering what I'm blathering on about, please see....

this

that

evolutionist's viewpoint

rebuttle 1

more criticism

absolute and unrelenting destruction of the criticism....man I love being right....:)

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/23/06 21:49

Quote:

Unfortunately, there's 'new', peer-reviewed evidence that the radioisotopic decay rates have been accelerated in the past, and that the earth is about 6000 years old.

Lol, ok sure.. show me what real science journal published evidence that the Earth is 6000 y/o ..this is too funny.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/23/06 23:57

RATE. I provided links, its peer-reviewed.

Of course, amateur evolutionists are conditioned to believe that creationists aren't peer-reviewed, that they don't do any 'real' science, and that they have no Ph.D's.

You could look up the Creation Research Society Quarterly publication, or the Technical Journal publication. Both are peer-reviewed, and both are creationist.

I would subscribe to the CRSQ, but I probably wouldn't understand it. Although I'm planning on subscribing once I'm in the middle of schooling, or once I'm done with schooling.

Otherwise, if you want more information, click the links I provided. Two of the links are from one of the geologists who worked on the RATE project.

If you want a specific source, feel free to check out this:

(CRSQ 2004) Humphreys, D. R., S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, and A. A. Snelling, Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 41(1), 1-16, 2004. See http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium_lo_res.pdf.

To further damage the unrelenting religious bigotry of evolutionists, the evolutionist predictions of magnetic fields is off, and the YEC view on God's creation of magnetic fields is on.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

Hm. Could it be? Creation science is science after all? I wouldn't have thought it the way you guys were talking.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/24/06 03:22

Quote:

Creation Research Society Quarterly

hahaha yeah really respectable.

Posted By: capanno

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/24/06 09:51

And that right there shows your arrogance.

Posted By: jcl

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/24/06 11:38

It is quite funny how creationists "review" their own pamphlets and call that "peer review". However, peer review means that a group of _independent scientists_ review articles meant for publication in _real_ scientific journals, like "Science" or "Nature".

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

Creationists seem to only publish inside their religious circle, and do not communicate with the scientific community. As to my knowledge they haven't published a single creationist article in any peer reviewed scientific journal so far.

Quote:

Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly

Have you read that article? Even a layman can see the nonsense in those "Helium discoveries". In his calculations the author just ignored the effect of pressure on helium diffusion, and therefore his results were all wrong. And if you read his desparate answers on the rebuttals, you'll see that they didn't contain anything new, just a repetition of his arguments and an attack on the person who debunked his idea. In fact he should be grateful that a scientist took him serious enough to undertake the effort of debunking.

More interesting however is the mentioned "accelerated nuclear decay" on which this helium pamplet is based. This is indeed such a funny example of creationist faith that it's worth to be explained here:

As creationists learned to their dismay that radioactive decay proved an earth age of billions of years, they invented the "accelerated decay" idea to save their 6000 years faith. According to their belief, God somehow "accelerated" the radioactive decay in minerals by a factor of several millions to make them look much older as they are.

Unfortunately, any first semester physics student could tell you that such an "accerelated decay" would convert any innocent radioactive mineral into a considerable nuclear reactor! Accelerating the decay several million times would produce enough fission heat to roast Adam and vaporize the oceans. Pity that the "helium" author - and his "peer reviewers" - obviously missed radioactivity in school.

You should not be surprised that all the world is laughing at such creationist "science".

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/24/06 16:38

So let me get this straight. Your only rebuttle to actual peer-reviewed work is to quote attacks based on non-peer-reviewed criticism?

Right. Its become increasingly clear that this isn't an argument over science, its an ad hominem argument. Its really rather sad to see some intelligent people proposing such ignorant ideas when their theory is made foolish.

Humphreys responds, at length, about the absolute lack of any problem with using less pressure to test the results. Furthermore, if pressure was producing results with differences of a factor of 100,000, how would it just happen to match up with the 6,000 year age. Looking at Humphrey's biography, he seems like quite a genius. I'm inclined to believe him over you and Henke, who not only seems to not know what he's talking about, but used irrelevant arguemnts to 'refute' the findings.

Furthermore, RATE research was posed in other scientific venues. I just quoted the most easily accessible. Why shouldn't I pass off Nature because, its only reviewed by biased evolutionists? That's stupid, and you guys know nothing about who these publications are reviewed by. I would be surprised that Henke wouldn't mention at length that these results were ignored by the mainstream scientific community if he could. Right.

Quote:

According to their belief, God somehow "accelerated" the radioactive decay in minerals by a factor of several millions to make them look much older as they are.

This is nonsense. You should try actually researching what creationists have to say before making comments.

Quote:

Unfortunately, any first semester physics student could tell you that such an "accerelated decay" would convert any innocent radioactive mineral into a considerable nuclear reactor!

Which I'm sure is a fact four collaborating scientists with Ph.Ds in the various fields (including physics) just happened to overlook.

Quote:

And if you read his desparate answers on the rebuttals, you'll see that they didn't contain anything new, just a repetition of his arguments and an attack on the person who debunked his idea

Not only did Henke use irrelevant research, but I'm wondering....why not submit it for peer-review? He's making himself look like what you guys claim creationists are. Non scientist hacks who run their ideas on websites because you can say anything you want on the internet.

Quote:

hahaha yeah really respectable.

Ok. Well if this is how the debate on evolution works then there's no point in even discussing it. You guys consistently try and stack the deck in your favor. The only way evolution can be disproved is if each and every single evolutionist says there's no reason to believe it.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/24/06 16:53

Dude, how did you get like this anyway? Do you realize how messed up your thinking is?

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/24/06 17:15

Let's just take a look at a few of the tactics you gtuys have used.

"Creationists aren't peer-reviewed."

I show you that they are peer-reviewed.

"They're not peer-reviewed by respectable scientists."

What would be a respectable scientist? Say one who's an expert in their field? Well by definition its not peer-review unless its reviewed by other experts.

"RATE doesn't matter because Henke said something about pressure."

So now you don't have to be peer-reviewed to do real science? Creationists are held to the highest standards by you guys (standards that can never be met), while evolutionists can basically do whatever they want....as long as its in favor of evolution.

Talk about desperation. Here's the problem. I now present scientific, peer-reviewed evidence (the exact stuff you guys say we don't have) that the earth is young. Your response? To quite non peer-reviewed criticism, and then call a damaging rebuttle of that criticism 'desperate'. Which only begs the question of why its desperate.

I submit that, in fact, based on comments by the remaining evolutionists, you guys are getting desperate. Creationism is becoming much more sophisticated, and the evidence has become even more damning to evolution so you're left with two options. 1). Admit that creationism is valid. 2). Ad hominem attacks.

I don't have to wonder which one you guys choose. This religious devotion is really rather interesting. Especially coming from a militant atheist.

Here's one way to shed some light on the problem. Quote some peer-reviewed evidence that RATE is faulty. The burden of proof is on you, a decade of research speaks stronger than your last desperate attempts to save your theory.

Posted By: jcl

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/24/06 17:22

Quote:

So let me get this straight. Your only rebuttle to actual peer-reviewed work is to quote attacks based on non-peer-reviewed criticism?

So let me get this straight: Your only remaining argument against the debunking of the "helium" myth is the fact that the rebuttal was "non peer reviewed"?

How about then showing me a single peer reviewed creationist article?

Quote:

Which I'm sure is a fact four collaborating scientists with Ph.Ds in the various fields (including physics) just happened to overlook.

"Scientists" that are not able to see that a million times accelerated nuclear decay would also increase the fission heat a million times? Hmm, now I understand why those four found their refuge in creationism.

You don't need to be a scientist to see that the "accelerated nuclear decay" is nonsense: It can't be caused by natural causes because the half-life of an element is determined by it's mass and charge. For altering the decay rate by a factor of a million, you need to alter its mass or charge accordingly. If God somehow manages to change those values by a miracle, the world of matter we know would cease to exists. Apart from the fact that, as I pointed out, his creation would have been roasted by the excess fission energy.

Apart from all the other contraditions of the young earth faith, like the 3 major problems listed in another thread on this forum.

Quote:

Humphreys responds, at length, about the absolute lack of any problem with using less pressure to test the results.

Yes, really at length, yet he managed not to answer at all to the arguments in Henke's rebuttal. In his only argument that was not ad hominem he apparently confused gas pressure with pressure on the crystal structure.

If you want to use his pamphlet as an argument, you should really read it and especially its utter destruction by Henke. It is a beautiful example of "creationist science".

Imagine a cluster of zircon crystals. They contain helium, which diffuses. Obviously the helium flow through a certain area is proportional to the helium pressure difference between both sides of that area. If a crystal contains the same helium density as its neighbor crystal or the material it's embedded in, no helium will diffuse. I think this is understandable?

Ok, when you now have a cluster of crystals, the helium will diffuse only from the outer crystals, and only if there's a helium density difference to the outer area. Even if this is the case, we'll then get a helium density gradient with the maxiumum helium amount in the center, and less helium at the border of the cluster. Which means that you can measure any helium amount you want in a crystal cluster. It just depends on at which place you were measuring it.

Which makes Humphreys helium article complete bunk. He takes the position of the crystals not into consideration, nor the helium concentration in the surrounding matter. Both however determine majorly the helium amount in the zircons.

While the mentioned helium gradient is caused by the gas pressure difference of the helium, Humphreys talks in his responses about the pressure on the zircon crystal from the surrounding rock. He didn't even understand this flaw in his article.

Henke pointed out numerous other flaws, for instance Humphreys diffusion formula was totally wrong. And the best part is that even if his measurements were correct, his announced 6000 years result is complete phantasy! Using his own data and formula, you'd get an age distribution of his zircons between 460.000 years and zero.

As a resume: It's ok to firmly believe in something, even in strange things, but then you better separate faith and science. It is really funny what bizarre theories people are forced to come up with in order to make their superstitions look "scientific"...

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/27/06 10:43

I get the following impression of this discussion:

Irish_Farmer picks from science some facts that fit into his belief-system. All the other facts are called wrong or some kind of a com-plot / conspiracy between scientists and their students.
But that is not the way science works.

I really wonder why Irish_Farmer acts this way. He seems to be intelligent but there is some kind of blockade in his thinking that prevents him to learn from other intelligent people. How can this happen? It feels to me like some affective brain washing. Where do I have to apply to become such a brave and persistent believer?

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/27/06 22:51

So what your arguments still come down to is that creationists aren't peer reviewed. They have two peer reviewed publications, but that isn't good enough because peer review by creationists isn't valid.

You guys are pretty slick, the way you run things. Creationists can't quote creationists because you won't believe it. But if creationists base their claims on evolutionists, then they're taking them out of context (even if the context is crystal clear). I show you two peer reviewed publications for creationists, but it isn't good enough because they're just 'patting each other on the back.'

There's absolutely no way for creationists to win. Even if we play by all of your rules, you'll find some other loophole to dismiss us with. This is getting rather redundent.

Second, I've mentioned several times that you're talking nonsense when you say creationists don't understand the problems with accelerated decay. If you're just going to keep repeating yourself and not figure out that creationists understand the problems and that they're researching with the problems in mind.

If your response to this is that creationists don't know about the problems, then there's no reason to continue on about that.

Quote:

Yes, really at length, yet he managed not to answer at all to the arguments in Henke's rebuttal. In his only argument that was not ad hominem he apparently confused gas pressure with pressure on the crystal structure.

Seriously, if you read the 'zircons' page on talk origins, the first 2/3 of his article are an ad hominem attack filled with religious bigotry. Then in that same article he says he won't submit anything for peer review because he doesn't want to give humphreys any time to defend himself. What a BS excuse. Maybe he knows that if he actually has to submit for peer review his article will be reduced to its bare bones (no attacks on religion or humphreys), and when this happens humphreys will be able to destroy his 'criticism.' If this isn't the case, then why not embarrass Humphreys? It would be a crushing blow to YECs. If creationists are really in such a down-and-out position as you guys (have been lead to believe) claim, then why not finish us off?

As for the rest of your points. Gas pressure and whatnot.

Henke doesn't dwell on gas pressure from what I can see. You'll have to point out what you're talking about. In fact, that section where Henke talks about vacuum problems shows how disengenous he really is. Quoting irrelevant papers to make his point discredits just about everything else he says. Then he goes on to dwell on points like the soviet data that Humphreys already responded to. I haven't poured over the paper, but even if Henke was right and Humphreys did manipulate the Soviet data, it doesn't affect the outcome.

Quote:

Ok, when you now have a cluster of crystals, the helium will diffuse only from the outer crystals, and only if there's a helium density difference to the outer area. Even if this is the case, we'll then get a helium density gradient with the maxiumum helium amount in the center, and less helium at the border of the cluster. Which means that you can measure any helium amount you want in a crystal cluster. It just depends on at which place you were measuring it.

Where does Henke even approach this?

Quote:

While the mentioned helium gradient is caused by the gas pressure difference of the helium, Humphreys talks in his responses about the pressure on the zircon crystal from the surrounding rock.

Again, I read the trueorigin.org response and traced that back to Henke's accusations and what you're saying sounds like it has nothing to do with what Henke said.

Anyway, what I see is Humphreys respond to pretty much every point Henke makes, then Henke makes the point again, except this time he's said it a little bit more than before. Then he comes up with one new irrelevant point and suddenly Henke wins (according to you) after Humphreys destroys that point. You apparently were reading a different paper than me, unless you can point out what I missed.

Quote:

Henke pointed out numerous other flaws, for instance Humphreys diffusion formula was totally wrong.

Specifically? I mean something like quote what Henke says about this.

Quote:

And the best part is that even if his measurements were correct, his announced 6000 years result is complete phantasy! Using his own data and formula, you'd get an age distribution of his zircons between 460.000 years and zero.

Humphreys only reponse to this was about 'garbage' data giving 'garbage' results, so I guess I'm screwed because I don't have time to run through the equations and results myself.

Unless Humphreys elaborates on this, then its possible Henke is right and that the dates fit into the hundreds of thousands.

But unless Henke was being purposefully misleading, then it would be logical to conclude that these results are actually a problem. He quotes his irrelevant pressure argument as providing some extra leverage towards the uniformitarian model. I would imagine he wouldn't have to make that claim unless the results were actually a problem.

Henke has made several dubious claims in his original essay, and second essay, which Humphreys was polite enough to point out. Most of which relied, apparently, on the reader being ignorant of Humphreys paper.

Then to sum up why I don't make an idol of peer-review, here's Henke's own words.

"In contrast to peer-reviewed technical journals that have relatively few readers and little space for adequately detailed discussions and calculations, Talkorigins provides a peer-reviewed science forum that has a potential audience of millions and no page limits."

Peer-review is as good as the talk.origins internet forum. I'm not saying it isn't peer-reviewed, or that the forums are bad. But you can accurately call a internet forum 'peer-reviewed'. There's nothing magical about it.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/28/06 02:23

Quote:

So what your arguments still come down to is that creationists aren't peer reviewed. They have two peer reviewed publications, but that isn't good enough because peer review by creationists isn't valid.

I you misundersatand what peer review is supposed to accomplish- it is to ensure that supposedly disinterested parties independently review a paper to check for accuracy, relavance, and so on. I actually believe that most "evolutionists" are going to be much more impartial and qualified to review papers than a creationist.

Therefore the scientific credentials of the reviewer are important, and few creationsists are actually experts in a related scientic field. In other words, I'd be very suprised to find a geology PHD who was also a creationist.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/30/06 20:09

Quote:

I you misundersatand what peer review is supposed to accomplish- it is to ensure that supposedly disinterested parties independently review a paper to check for accuracy, relavance, and so on. I actually believe that most "evolutionists" are going to be much more impartial and qualified to review papers than a creationist.

No one says it has to be a disinterested party. It just has to be someone who is an expert in the relevant field. There's nothing magical about it. The 'judges' are just supposed to check for mistakes (as you've said) and challenge the author to make the paper the best it can be. It doesn't mean that the peer-review process automatically makes the paper 100% correct. It just means its less likely to contain mistakes.

Quote:

Therefore the scientific credentials of the reviewer are important, and few creationsists are actually experts in a related scientic field. In other words, I'd be very suprised to find a geology PHD who was also a creationist.

Humpheys has a Ph.D. in both Geophysics and Space Physics. One of his other colleagues has a Ph.D. in Geology, and I can't remember what the other two had Ph.Ds in except that one of them I think is just regular old Physics.

These guys (outside of their YEC work) have done important secular work. Designing things for governments and whatnot. You can check out their biographies on AiG if you really want, not that you'd believe them anyway.

But they do have real Ph.Ds from real schools.

Edit: By the by, the evolutionist superstition is really showing its stripes. When they find 'soft tissue' in bones that are 10 million years old and older, they believe it managed not to decay for that long. I don't mind if you're going to have a superstitious belief, but don't get it mixed up with science.

(For instance, there's no evidence that any 'soft tissue' could last that long, and really I think the burden of proof is on evolutionists to show how it could happen instead of resorting to circular reasoning...."It survived for 10 million+ years because there it is".)

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/30/06 21:04

Quote:

But they do have real Ph.Ds from real schools.

I dont belive that...they probably eitehr bought the degrees or lie about it. However, either way, it doesnt make them credible when they are clearly at odds with the the mainstream thought.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/31/06 06:17

Quote:

I dont belive that...they probably eitehr bought the degrees or lie about it. However, either way, it doesnt make them credible when they are clearly at odds with the the mainstream thought.

That's perhaps the most illogical thing you've managed to say, yet. You can't buy degress from accredited schools. If you don't believe they have Ph.Ds, then I don't believe evolutionists do either. A little food for thought, Henke is obviously (judging by his actions) desperate to conclude that Humphreys is completely wrong about this Zircon junk. Perhaps the quickest way to end the discussion would be to say, "Humphreys and his colleagues don't have Ph.Ds/have fake Ph.Ds." You wouldn't even need to say anything else. Is it any wonder that he hasn't said that yet?

If we determine right from wrong by mainstream thought, then we truly are screwed. Good luck with that.

I don't suppose there's much more to say on this. The discussion isn't going to go anywhere if you've removed yourself from reality.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/31/06 06:44

This is not a very good way to build up your discussion, Irish_Farmer. You think you have won now because Matt made a comment concerning the PhD? That is too funny. I like this thread. It is entertaining.

To be honest. I used to work at a university and everybody can get a PhD. Just write a paper and defend it later in front of a few specialists. You can pick up a very special topic and you will have no problems to get a PhD. That even does not mean you are a big scientist afterwards. You could even get a Creationist after that. In Germany are a lot of dubious PhD's as well. Some became politicians and that says all

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/31/06 06:59

How is what i said illogical anyway? I just am suspicious that these people have PHDs from actual universities. If they do I would be surprised--I would certainly flunk any geophysics major who believed that Earth was only 6000 years old

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/31/06 17:34

Excuse me, the one with the geophysics Ph.D is Baumgardner and he got it from UCLA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but UCLA wasn't a degree-mill last time I heard.

What you guys are thinking of are degree mills. Schools where you usually don't have to do anything except pay money to get a "Ph.D." Of course, the burden of proof is on you guys to show that they got their degrees from degree-mills.

Humphreys got his Physics Ph.D. from the Louisiana state University. That is also a 'real' school.

Quote:

This is not a very good way to build up your discussion, Irish_Farmer. You think you have won now because Matt made a comment concerning the PhD? That is too funny. I like this thread. It is entertaining.

What are you talking about? This is about two different viewpoints commenting on a technical discussion between two scientists. I don't think either side has the ability to 'win' this discussion.

Its also apparent that evolutionists are starting to get annoyed by the increasing inability to preach evolution since they're developing new ways to indoctrinate children as young as 5 years old.

Man, that website has an ugly design.

Quote:

To be honest. I used to work at a university and everybody can get a PhD. Just write a paper and defend it later in front of a few specialists.

Good luck doing that without years of schooling. If you're right, and EVERY Ph.D. is useless, then how do I know any evolutionist is qualified?

I accidentally started filling out the application for schooling to attain a Ph.D. at the college I was looking at going to. You have to write an essay just on the application explaining why you want to persue the Ph.D. Then it appeared to me that you have to do more schooling. It sounds like Ph.D.s are a commitment, something that takes years.

Really, you guys are pretty good at distracting the argument from the point. If it wasn't obvious already, then its quite apparent now that most evolutionists have to rely on distraction, confusion, and insults as opposed to real ideas.

I would try and distance myself from the tactics of people like one of Kent Hovind's spokespersons. He downplayed the importance of Ph.Ds, too.

Quote:

How is what i said illogical anyway? I just am suspicious that these people have PHDs from actual universities. If they do I would be surprised--I would certainly flunk any geophysics major who believed that Earth was only 6000 years old

Well, I'll make the case one last time. If these creationists working on the RATE project didn't have real degrees or doctorates or whatever, evolutionists (like Henke) would have pointed it out by now. Evolutionists never fail to point out stuff like that. Henke hasn't done it yet, so its apparent by the tone of his 'essays' that he recognizes these men as 'real' scientists, even if he doesn't view their work as 'real'.

If you guys aren't going to believe anything except what you hear from evolutionists, then that speaks volumes about why [you] people even believe evolution in the first place. At least amateur creationists tend to consider the other side without coming up with excuses for dismissing them, or more accurately: slinging mud.

We're not getting anywhere.

Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 07/31/06 18:47

i wonder what all this arguing about phd�s is worth when the paper or the "rate" idea does not work in first place.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 08/01/06 07:27

Quote:

Really, you guys are pretty good at distracting the argument from the point. If it wasn't obvious already, then its quite apparent now that most evolutionists have to rely on distraction, confusion, and insults as opposed to real ideas.

With this kind of arguing you distract even more than we do.

And by the way. Please do not generalize in that way. Not every PhD is a weak PhD and not every evolutionist is like you describe them. There are good and bad scientists but the advantage in the "real" science over creationism is that they are free. They are not bound to assumptions like the world is only 6000 years old. Real science implements just this theory that provides more evidences and follows the mainstream framework of well educated scientists.

In real science it is interesting when a single PhD has another opinion but it does not instantly change the framework of thinking.

And that is the way. Do not talk here in this forum. Show evidences and convince the majority of scientists and then you might have a chance. All the other attempts are rather embarrassing at my mind.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 08/01/06 11:06

Quote:

Excuse me, the one with the geophysics Ph.D is Baumgardner and he got it from UCLA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but UCLA wasn't a degree-mill last time I heard.

I think you are making this up, or at least they lied about getting a degree from there...I have my doubts these poeple are intelligent enough to get doctorates in any field, let alone geophysics. I suppose some poeple can fall through the cracks though.

Even if the degrees are legitimate, it of course doesnt prove anything..the ideas are still bad.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 08/02/06 22:15

Quote:

With this kind of arguing you distract even more than we do.

You guys question the Ph.Ds, then I point out that its irrelevant, and I'm distracting....from what? Your distraction?

Quote:

And by the way. Please do not generalize in that way. Not every PhD is a weak PhD and not every evolutionist is like you describe them.

Apparently every amateur evolutionist is. And I know Ph.Ds aren't weak. You actually have to work hard to obtain a ligitimate Ph.D.

Quote:

There are good and bad scientists but the advantage in the "real" science over creationism is that they are free. They are not bound to assumptions like the world is only 6000 years old.

No evolutionists bound to the millions-of-years assumption, as well as the 'story of evolution'. So when they find a human footprint in 2 million year old ash, its not a human. When they find C14 in millions of years old artifacts, then they make the unfalsifiable claim that its contaminated. When they find soft tissue on dinosaure bones, they assume soft tissue can last for millions of years with no evidence to back that up.

Quote:

Real science implements just this theory that provides more evidences and follows the mainstream framework of well educated scientists.

Then modern science is built on false science because up until Darwin's 'revolution' pretty much everyone was a creationist.

Quote:

In real science it is interesting when a single PhD has another opinion but it does not instantly change the framework of thinking.

No, that's what evidence is for.

Quote:

And that is the way. Do not talk here in this forum. Show evidences and convince the majority of scientists and then you might have a chance. All the other attempts are rather embarrassing at my mind.

This is the bandwagon fallacy.

Quote:

I think you are making this up, or at least they lied about getting a degree from there...I have my doubts these poeple are intelligent enough to get doctorates in any field, let alone geophysics. I suppose some poeple can fall through the cracks though.

Any of them have more intelligence in their pinky than you have in your head.

All seriousness aside. I'm going to ask one last time. Why wouldn't Henke point out the illigitemacy of any of the creationist's Ph.Ds? You won't answer that because you can't without proving me right.

You and I both know he would jump on the opportunity if he could. End of story.

Quote:

Even if the degrees are legitimate, it of course doesnt prove anything..the ideas are still bad.

Which I'm sure you'll provide reasoning for.

Its your gullibility and your religious devotion to evolutionary dogma that make illigitimate essays like Henke's work. He doesn't actually have to say anything worthwhile because he knows people like just need ANY explanation at all so you can dismiss what creationists have to say.

Try coming up with some substance for once.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 08/03/06 16:55

Your statement with the "bandwagon fallacy" shows me among all the others that you turn in circles and still cannot provide evidences as always and your main statement is that evolutionists evidences are weak.

But I prefer weak evidences over no evidences. And here I could repeat your statement "End of story"

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 08/03/06 22:12

Quote:

Your statement with the "bandwagon fallacy" shows me among all the others that you turn in circles and still cannot provide evidences as always and your main statement is that evolutionists evidences are weak.

But I prefer weak evidences over no evidences. And here I could repeat your statement "End of story"

You told me to convince 'the majority of scientists.' In other words, you don't think I have an argument because 'the majority' agrees with you. That's the bandwagon fallacy. Had you asked me to provide evidence on these forums, that would have been another story.

Posted By: Machinery_Frank

Re: Things evolution can't explain - 08/04/06 07:29

Haha, I mentioned the evidence problem maybe a dozen times and you always ignored it. I don't care any bandwagon. I care logically to follow evidences like all the others do (and like the majority does). That does not have to do with any fallacy.

I understand the problem. When we assume the majority to be silly then this "bandwagon fallacy" could make sense but that does not count for the majority of scientists at my mind. And we talk about active scientists that write articles and do researching. This kind of people are not that dumb that you could simply de-qualify them with a few of your thoughts. That would almost be like me saying: "Your god is not prudent and not open-minded since he made such a mess in this world".

I hope you see this problem. You seem to not understand all facts in this case as I might not understand your god (in the hypothetical case that he might exist).

Posted By: jcl

Re: Things evolution - 08/04/06 14:38

Sure: the fact that 99% of scientists agree on something does not necessarily mean that it's true. For instance, only 200 years ago 99% of scientists agreed on creationism, and 600 years ago they agreed on geocentrism.

However, if scientists have competing theories to choose from, normally the majority choice turns out to be correct. At least I don't know of any counter example. The heliocentric model, relativity theory, quantum theory, or the Big Bang model were new competing theories that became accepted by the scientific community even before most observations were made that confirmed them. Therefore, the bandwagon is not always a fallacy.

Just claiming that a follower has a Ph.D won't suffice for defending an otherwise failing theory. The only way to defend "accelerated decay" would be to fix its contradictions and logical faults. But there are so many specific problems like the heat problem and the miracle requirement, and general problems like the incompatibility with all astronomical, physical and geological age observations, that seriously defending "accelerated decay" seems impossible to me. If you want to try, just go ahead.

Posted By: Alberto

Re: Things evolution - 08/04/06 19:00

Love. What possible good is the evolution of love? Love contains many traits that are the EXACT OPPOSITE of evolution. Self sacrifice certainly being a big one. I can't imagine losing for the benefit of others would be selected for quite easily.

It is amazing, I agree but it is also a prove in favour of evolution
Computer simulations have been made to test group behaviours, if you are a programmer you can try yourself, it is not so difficult.

Lets consider two comunities A and B which must defend themselves against a strong enemy

A) 100 % of the members of the comunity are normal people , neither cowards nor heros
B) 90 % of the members are selfish people but a 10 % are prepared to die for their comunity

Well ,group B have much more chance to survive than group A

Posted By: Grimber

Re: Things evolution - 08/04/06 19:41

What Evolution can't explain?

Why so many unbelievable crimes against humanity through out history, are committed by the church, follows of the church and the so called 'faithful'.

( just a single example of one not too long ago)
http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news13.html

If you look at all the most terrible crimes against humanity, the vast majority of them were done in the name of some religion ( or one of the many namees of god).
Time and again and yet these crimes go unpunished, the 'church' is not called to step foward and answer for its crimes.

And these are the same organizations and peoplethat are supposedly teaching everyone how to live good and proper lives?

No the issue isn;t arguments for/against evolution. the argument should be 'can we truly justify the right for organized religion to continue to influance society with it's 2000 ish year track record'. Religion is a detrimental to humanity.

Man doesn't need to evolve physicaly, we need to evolve socialy to throw off what is distructive to advancement of human society and civilization, the religious cults ( yes christianity is nothing but another cult).

Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Things evolution - 08/04/06 19:44

????

if a success ratio is 50% for an average person and 100% for the one who is willing to die for then from the mathematical point 100 average will kill 50 enemies and need 2 runs to kill the other horde, whilte the 10 heros from horde b will kill 10 others and need 10 runs to kill horde a.

since 2 is smaller then 10 (as long no creationist phd�ist cant proof its the other way round) the horde a will win the battle.

the ratio would need to be 1:5 to put them both equal. and i know only spiderman and superman whoe could manage this.
though one evolved thru mutation into a hero and the other one is an alien life form ...think about that

cheers

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution - 08/04/06 21:25

Quote:

Love. What possible good is the evolution of love? Love contains many traits that are the EXACT OPPOSITE of evolution.

Nonsense..I have seen this repeated over and over, and it is so obviously wrong I can hardly imagine why anyone can argue such a point.

Love is perhaps the feature in human behavior that is most clearly evolutionarily derived. Obviously, love or close bonding between mates is needed to ensure that children can be raised and cared for. Similar pair bondings are seen in many other mammal and bird species. For the parents to work togetehr to rasi the young a close and trusting bond is essential.

Love between other family members, friends, etc, is also selectively advantageous, as close bonding encourages mutual protection within a population. This ensures not only the survival of young and indviduals, but of the population as a whole. All social animals have such bondings, from penguins to gorillas.

To argue that self-sacrifice is not consistent with evolution is also difficult, because clearly an individual's sacrifice may sometimes enable a larger group to survive.

So we see how these traits are all derived from evolution and selection. However, it is also a mistake to attempt to attribute all human behavior to evolutionarly advantgeous traits. Humans and animals do not always act in their best interests.

Posted By: Alberto

Re: Things evolution - 08/04/06 21:32

BlattSalat

A group formed of 90 % cowards and 10 % heros is more efficient as far as defense is concerned ,than a group formed by a 100 % normal people
Obviuosly it depends also on the degree of cowardness \ heroism but , general speaking , it is like that
Maybe it is not intuitive .
Make a computer simulation and you will see yourself

Anyway you seem to miss the point
Irish Farmer claimed

Evolutionism is based on the struggle for life
Selfish entities survive while generous entities die young
A succesful comunity should be consequently formed by selfish people only

What about the spirit of sacrifice ,then ?

The point is that the survival of the fittist apply also to groups , not to single entities only.

A group which generates a majority of selfish entities but also a minority of very generous entities which are willing to sacrifice their life for the comunity,is extremely efficient

Consequently heros and saints are a consequences of evolutionism

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Things evolution - 08/04/06 21:39

Quote:

Selfish entities survive while generous entities die young

Wrong, see my above post.

Posted By: Blattsalat

Re: Things evolution - 08/05/06 01:59

@alberto:
i dont have to run any simulation at all. simple math will do the trick.
plus another war strategy issue you missed to point out:
while 100 average people can somehow look after themselfs goup b will be in permanent struggle because 10% need to take care of the other 90%. so you task is not only to kill the enemy but also to defend the other majority.

while matt has pointed out a few good things about how important this "bounds" are for evolution there is just one thing to add:

its the old nutshell about why the t-rex died out and the chicken survived. surviving of the fittests has nothing to do with strenght or self sacrifice.
Most animals dont win by fighting but by hiding or running away. from this point of view the cowards from you example have the best chance to survive if the circumstances are right.

the human body is a very weak structure compared to most animals. we need to rest and sleep a lot, we die very fast without food or water, and so on....

the best evolutional way to make us stronger or "fitter" is to found hordes and a social kind of web.
this grants us dramatic benefits and raises our average age when we die from 30 to 75+.

in nature the principe of lonesome hunters is very weak and not many survive on the long run. on the other hand colonialisation seams to be a key feature that works.

and the reason we are still here is that we are a social species and not the other way round.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Things evolution - 08/05/06 04:41

Quote:

Haha, I mentioned the evidence problem maybe a dozen times and you always ignored it.

Saying "The RATE findings don't work." Isn't very specific. What am I supposed to respond to?

Quote:

I don't care any bandwagon. I care logically to follow evidences like all the others do (and like the majority does). That does not have to do with any fallacy.

Good for you.

Quote:

I understand the problem. When we assume the majority to be silly then this "bandwagon fallacy" could make sense but that does not count for the majority of scientists at my mind.

Its only a fallacy (this applies to your comments JCL) in the context of a debate. Which is what I thought this was....but its apparent by the surgence of posts, all of which contain nothing but fluff, that this has degraded beyond anything useful, if it ever was.

Quote:

And we talk about active scientists that write articles and do researching. This kind of people are not that dumb that you could simply de-qualify them with a few of your thoughts. That would almost be like me saying: "Your god is not prudent and not open-minded since he made such a mess in this world".

Yet you do the same to creationists. When you're pointing your finger at me there are three fingers pointing right back.

Quote:

hope you see this problem. You seem to not understand all facts in this case as I might not understand your god (in the hypothetical case that he might exist).

"Evolution is true because God this and God that." Get a new argument.

Quote:

Just claiming that a follower has a Ph.D won't suffice for defending an otherwise failing theory.

I'm only answering your accusations. You just keep spinning the rules around trying to get me to run circles rather than actually debating. Its quite obvious by the evolutionist's tactics alone that you're wrong. In my experience, the ones who don't use shady tactics in general are usually correct. I'm sure you'll have a response to that, but I don't really care.

Quote:

he only way to defend "accelerated decay" would be to fix its contradictions and logical faults.

Which is why I said they were working on that. I think their goal was to find damaging evidence of a young earth and then continue to do research. That they haven't completed their research yet is simply an obvious fact.

Quote:

and the miracle requirement

Science doesn't concern itself with miracles, so if the earth is young and there's evidence that decay was accelerated then you can come up with whatever natural explanation you want. But that doesn't mean you automatically discard evidence that contradicts naturalism.

Quote:

and general problems like the incompatibility with all astronomical, physical and geological age observations, that seriously defending "accelerated decay" seems impossible to me. If you want to try, just go ahead.

I'll leave it to the professionals.

Quote:

It is amazing, I agree but it is also a prove in favour of evolution
Computer simulations have been made to test group behaviours, if you are a programmer you can try yourself, it is not so difficult.

Lets consider two comunities A and B which must defend themselves against a strong enemy

A) 100 % of the members of the comunity are normal people , neither cowards nor heros
B) 90 % of the members are selfish people but a 10 % are prepared to die for their comunity

Well ,group B have much more chance to survive than group A

The problem with this model is that you would have to evolve the behavior in order to determine whether or not it would evolve.

Quote:

What Evolution can't explain?

Why so many unbelievable crimes against humanity through out history, are committed by the church, follows of the church and the so called 'faithful'.

( just a single example of one not too long ago)
http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news13.html

If you look at all the most terrible crimes against humanity, the vast majority of them were done in the name of some religion ( or one of the many namees of god).
Time and again and yet these crimes go unpunished, the 'church' is not called to step foward and answer for its crimes.

And these are the same organizations and peoplethat are supposedly teaching everyone how to live good and proper lives?

No the issue isn;t arguments for/against evolution. the argument should be 'can we truly justify the right for organized religion to continue to influance society with it's 2000 ish year track record'. Religion is a detrimental to humanity.

Man doesn't need to evolve physicaly, we need to evolve socialy to throw off what is distructive to advancement of human society and civilization, the religious cults ( yes christianity is nothing but another cult).

This basically sums up why I feel absolutely no need at all to compromise my beliefs with people like you.

Quote:

Obviously, love or close bonding between mates is needed to ensure that children can be raised and cared for.

Self sacrifice that leads to no reproductive advantage would be the focus, not caring for young.

Quote:

Love between other family members, friends, etc, is also selectively advantageous, as close bonding encourages mutual protection within a population. This ensures not only the survival of young and indviduals, but of the population as a whole. All social animals have such bondings, from penguins to gorillas.

To argue that self-sacrifice is not consistent with evolution is also difficult, because clearly an individual's sacrifice may sometimes enable a larger group to survive.

If an animal lets self-sacrificing animals sacrifice themselves so that it can be selfish, what's to stop it from becoming dominant from the sacrifice of others?

Simply stating that sacrificial social interactions are advantageous doesn't show how they could have evolved.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Things evolution - 08/05/06 04:44

Quote:

What Evolution can't explain?

Why so many unbelievable crimes against humanity through out history, are committed by the church, follows of the church and the so called 'faithful'.

( just a single example of one not too long ago)
http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news13.html

If you look at all the most terrible crimes against humanity, the vast majority of them were done in the name of some religion ( or one of the many namees of god).
Time and again and yet these crimes go unpunished, the 'church' is not called to step foward and answer for its crimes.

And these are the same organizations and peoplethat are supposedly teaching everyone how to live good and proper lives?

No the issue isn;t arguments for/against evolution. the argument should be 'can we truly justify the right for organized religion to continue to influance society with it's 2000 ish year track record'. Religion is a detrimental to humanity.

Man doesn't need to evolve physicaly, we need to evolve socialy to throw off what is distructive to advancement of human society and civilization, the religious cults ( yes christianity is nothing but another cult).

At least when Christians do these things, the worst you can say is that we're disobeying the absolute truths that should have kept 'christians' from doing these things.

The best that can be said for all of the atheists that have killed billions of people is that they played by your rules.

Its a subtle difference, but an important one.

Posted By: jcl

Re: Things evolution - 08/05/06 07:37

Quote:

Science doesn't concern itself with miracles, so if the earth is young and there's evidence that decay was accelerated then you can come up with whatever natural explanation you want. But that doesn't mean you automatically discard evidence that contradicts naturalism.

Science per se does not automatically discard miracles. Some novels describe worlds full of witchcraft and miracles, yet science would be possible in those worlds when the miracles follow rules.

However, all empirical observations so far in our world show that miracles don't happen. Therefore, if a theory explains some phenomenon with a miracle, it's considered unscientific.

If we had indeed found evidence for excess helium in zircons, science would come up with other theories than "accelerated decay". Humphreys paper is scientifically worthless, but someone could repeat his measurements, this time with zircons from several sources and taking in regard the 3He/4He ratio and the helium amount and pressure of the environment. If real evidence could be presented, a mechanism had to be found for explaining the helium - but even then it would be a natural mechanism, and not a miracle like "accelerated decay" that contradicts all other observations.

Quote:

At least when Christians do these things, the worst you can say is that we're disobeying the absolute truths that should have kept 'christians' from doing these things.

The best that can be said for all of the atheists that have killed billions of people is that they played by your rules.

Who told you that? There are lots of examples for mass murder in the name of Christianity, but I don't know of a single murder in the name of Atheism.

Posted By: Alberto

Re: Things evolution - 08/05/06 07:45

" why the t-rex died out and the chicken survived..."

Again , you dont' answer Irish Farmers' question, which is , in my opinion, rather smart.

Where does the spirit of sacrifice come from ?

"i dont have to run any simulation at all. simple math will do the trick"

The only way to study group behaviours is using Montecarlo simulations
Even complex Math can not take into account the complex interactions among thousand entities
You assign a set of attributes to each entity and let the computer run

However also using common sense you can arrive at the same conclusions

A predator attacks a group of preys
He needs to kill just one prey per day to survive

a) The preys defend only the members of their family
b) The preys do not care about their relatives
c) A minority defend every member of the group
d) All the preys defend every member of the group

The "Human like" Behaviour a) can be a disaster for the comunity
The predator can kill more than one prey per day just to defend himself

The "Chicken like" Behaviour b) is acceptable for the comunity
The predator kill only one member per day

Behaviour c) can be the best solution
Just a small group of preys risk their life, togheter they can kill the predator

Behaviour d ) can be also dangerous for the comunity if all the members are willing to risk their life

As a matter of fact b) and c) are the most common behaviours in nature

The explanation is evolution

Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Things evolution - 08/05/06 08:04

Quote:

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

Things evolution can't explain