|
1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
600
guests, and 2
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68921
04/17/06 04:57
04/17/06 04:57
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
the short story: Equidae ... the family of horses including the zebra mid long story: +Hyracotherium... a terapod creature, 55million years b.c. about 50cm height. 4 toes front, 3 toes back legs. Bent back, small neck. small parts of scarf-skin at the toe tips. +Mesohippus: second stage of development of the horse. 40million y. b.c. +Anchitherium: 22m.y.b.c .... only 3 toes front and 3 in the back legs +Hipparios: 11m.y.b.c, strong deformed toes +Equus: the "modern" horse 2-3 m.y.b.c, one toe a couple of thousand years ago the common horse died out in america and was "reimported" 400 years ago. The funny thing is that the main source for horses and the main evolution (fossils aso) has taken place in north america. Using horses as an argument against evolution is redicilous in the first place. now the collecting of evidence starts: 1.) timeline: radiation messurements fit to the development time line of the horse. Fossils found have the age they need to have. 2.) transitions: the line from a 4 toes animal to a one toe horse has all needed development stages. Adding all of those "so nothing saying bones or skeletal systems" (as you would state) into a small thumbnail cinema would make a perfect morphing from A to B 3.) obserable facts: horses have degenerated thumbs. Atavismus also shows from time to time extra thumbs. (whales with back legs, Hypertrichose are other examples). Those fit into the fossil sheme we know. 4.) localisation: if the world scenery is changing from forrest to tundra like sceneries animals have to addapt to survive (longer legs for faster running, better teeth aso). The found transitions fit perfectly into the climatic changes. (as well as continental drift as far as genesis is concerned  ) The bottom line is simple: if it look like a donkey and smells like a donkey, its most likely a donkey. I wont address any of the other points from above but this one because it reduces all you have said to the simple fact that you dont understand evolution. -->..What matters is if there's a mechanism for making a fin turn into a hand. We have not seen this mechanism.... For the last time, evolution is not a force or mechanism for creating anything. Do you understand that?! You agree on mutation and the fact the human body can change thru time. You agree on "rewritten" dna. You agree on natural selection. You agree on dna data passed from one genereation to the next. You dont doubt the fossils found, you dont doubt the adaption of species into different environments. Its simple: you believe in the theory of evolution, you just dont want to admit it The only missing thing is that you cant understand that those changes can be radical as well... arms getting fins or the other way round. Though its a medical fact that our current fingers are thinner and longer then 50.000 years ago. Now you will argue again something about: "Common ancestry is not evolution" Then you ignore the fact that the whale fin is a simply degenerated human like arm. You will then say "oh, all animals have bones...thats an evidence for evolutions". you wouldnt see any form of evidence even if its a big fat train heading right at you. Not because you cant but because you dont like to.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68922
04/17/06 09:45
04/17/06 09:45
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,978
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Those leg nubs on snakes have been known to be used during mating. They have a purpose.
On almost all snake species, leg nubs disappear long before the snake mates.
Quote:
The whole point of this argument is to attack my belief that God created anything.
I don't want to attack your belief, but I thought the main goal of creationism was to get accepted as a scientific theory, not a belief.
Quote:
Typically flightless birds have uses for their flightless wings. In mating rituals, intimidation of predators, etc.
.
Mating seems to be a handy argument to explain vestigial limbs. The wing stubs are not even visible on the Kiwi without a close examination, and thus can hardly be used in mating rituals.
Quote:
The coccyx is used to aid in the birthing process, as well as adding support to our skeletal structure.
Can you explain how a bone dangling from the end of the spine can "support our skeletal structure"? At least, according to Wikipedia it can serve as a sort of shock absorber when someone violently sits down - maybe creationists should update their websites.
Quote:
Its an interesting tactic of evolutionists to change the meaning of a word like vestigial to mean
I was referring to organs inherited from evolutionary ancestors that do not fulfil its original purpose anymore. Call them whatever you want. If we were designed, then how could we have those organs, whatever their name?
Quote:
Evolution is founded on materialism because it lacks physical proof. Materialism is what keeps it going. You try and prove that nature created life because you can't believe God did it.
-----------------------------
I'm very much enjoying the fact that you guys have given up on defending evolution, and have instead turned to attack my faith in God
Irish, I had also enjoyed this debate so far. Unlike other creationists you had at least attempted to give some serious arguments for your point of view. You're the last remaining creationist here and such steadfastness is admirable. Nevertheless, I think most people following the threads would agree that your arguments were refuted so far and you've withdrawn to repeating your belief that "good mutations don't exist". This is normally where the debate ends. Belief can't be discussed.
That you're now coming with the crap we had "given up on defending evolution, and have instead turned to attack your faith" is far below the level of your previous posts.
In case you've forgotten: The debate about mutations ended with some estimates about the probability and time scale of what you call "progressive mutations". The result was that large scale mutations can happen within 100,000 years, which is an instant compared to the 2 billion years of life on earth. As you haven't come forward with any arguments against that - please correct me if I'm wrong here - the normal conclusion would be that such mutations, and thus evolution, indeed were possible. If you still believe otherwise, that's cool - but then it's a matter of belief and not of science.
If you think that the evolution discusson is not over yet, then it's time to come forward with some proof or evidence whatsoever that mutations can't happen.
Also you're invited to come forward and explain the becoming of life other than by evolution. I would have a large list of questions for you. But if as you say discussing it would be "attacking your faith", it's ok with me and I'll stop. This thread, as mentioned in the first post, is about discussing scientific arguments and not faith.
And please get informed about materalism. It might prevent that you expose yourself to ridicule by posting such nonsense like "evolution is based on materialism". I accept science and evolution, but I'm not a materialist and most scientists aren't either.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68923
04/17/06 15:32
04/17/06 15:32
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
I do think that many scientists ARE indeed materialists, or least recognize a very bright line between the natural world and the metaphysical.
When religious people worry that science attacks the core of their beliefs, I do think that they have a justification for this. Science does indeed follow materialist principles when searching for naturalistic explanations of phenomena.
This is all fine and uncontroversial when you explain the motion of waves, or the reason why weather patterns exist, and so on. But when it infringes on something that people seem to hold dear, like the origins of life, then it becomes an attack, even if it wasnt meant to be.
While science does not, and never can, disprove the existence of a creator or a divinity, it certainly disproves many of the principles and stories told in creation myths and so on, such as Genesis. We know now that the story of creation in Genesis is untrue, plain and simple. It just didn't happen that way.
Catholics for instance claim to able to reconcile this, and say the Biblical stories arent to be taken literally. Where you run into trouble is with the fundamentalists, usually American protestants, who demand that you believe everything in the bible, and they have the nerve to say that Catholics arent true Christians.. apparently Jesus was an American Baptist!
However, it seems that ultimately there are two kinds of religious thought; one that adapts and is malleable, and one that demands absolute certainty and unchanging faith. As they say, the tree that bends in the wind doesnt break.
As yet we still know so little about about the Universe that we dont even understand the exact mechanics of the subatomic particles, let alone the origins of the Universe. The demand for certainty in life, the need for absolute truth, is evidence of a lack of imagination and moral courage.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#68924
04/18/06 01:18
04/18/06 01:18
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I don't have time to respond in full right now, maybe later tonight, but probably not until tomorrow. Fair enough, though, no more insinuating what evolution is or isn't based on. Its more or less irrelevant, because materialism or not, if evolution is or isn't true is the point of this discussion at this time. While in my opinion, evolution should have died out long ago (as viewed by scientists' growing skepticism), I was simply saying the only reason it was still around was because people are holding onto the ideals of materialism more than evolution. But that's pointless. I have a few chores to take care of, and then I think I'm gonna be getting together with my friends for the night. I'm looking forward to responding in full later, and giving you guys a run for your money.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68925
04/18/06 02:04
04/18/06 02:04
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
While in my opinion, evolution should have died out long ago (as viewed by scientists' growing skepticism)
Sorry, you are wrong--so wrong i cant begin explain why.
Suffice to to say that there is no "growing skepticism" among scientist. Only a lingering skepticism from ignorant poeple who refuse to believe anything they cant see or touch, unless of course it's written in a book 2000 years old.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#68926
04/18/06 05:18
04/18/06 05:18
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Using horses as an argument against evolution is redicilous in the first place.
I wasn't. There is no direct proof that evolution can't happen. I can't prove that there isn't some kind of space magic that allows invisible fairies to fly, but I can prove that there is no evidence for it. Simply a lack of proof, or evidence that it is impossible, which itself calls the theory into question.
Quote:
Adding all of those "so nothing saying bones or skeletal systems" (as you would state) into a small thumbnail cinema would make a perfect morphing from A to B
Actually no it wouldn't. There would be size discrepencies, certain features would appear and then disappear again and sometimes reappear. When you look at the picture as a whole, and stop focusing on one or two features, it wouldn't flow all together as well as you'd like.
Quote:
Atavismus also shows from time to time extra thumbs
Humans are sometimes born with a sixth finger, but we don't believe we evolved from six fingered apes. The data for the finger is already there, some mutation or similar problem with the DNA caused the data for the sixth finger (nothing new being written since we already have fingers) to appear. Evolution inaction.
Quote:
horses have degenerated thumbs.
Honestly, the best you can do to show me that a cell turned into man is to say that horses have 'useless' thumbs? Well, I'm going to assume that by 'thumbs' you're referring to what are sometimes called the splint bones. These resemble thumbs in no way whatsoever, except that they are made of bone. In fact, when you look at the picture of the actual skeletal structure, it doesn't really even look like a thumb at all, from even the most layman of perspectives. The structure and placement just doesn't match up.
Quote:
The horse’s splint bones serve several important functions. They strengthen the leg and foot bones, very important because of the enormous stress that galloping puts on the legs. They also provide attachment points for important muscles. And they form a protective groove that houses the suspensory ligament, a vital elastic brace that supports the horse’s weight as it walks.
Quote:
(whales with back legs,
These aren't legs. These bones are attachment points on the pelvis, specifically for the genitals, similar to these horse 'toes' you refer to. Every now and then a whale is known to have abbarant morphs with useless bone structures that are an anomoly to the typical whale structure. Its unknown what causes these extraneous bones to appear, but like a sixth human finger, does it really matter?
Here's a picture of your supposed whale 'leg'.
Mm hm. Looks JUST like a leg to me. Besides, this isn't attached the vertibrate column, which we would expect the remnants of a leg to be. Every now and then some whales are born with small 1 inch long chunks of bone besides this hump, usually fused to the pelvis and this is called a leg. So maybe we can physically see this leg dangling off the side of the whale?
There is an unofficial account of a whale with a 'bump' (it was about 5.5 inches (as you guys would probably call it about 14 centimeters)) with bone in it about where one might expect legs to have been (near the pelvis). Compared to the average size of any given whale this places the bump well within 'who cares?' range, which is compounded by the fact that these bone structures have no resemblence to, nor could they even logically have come from, legs. So your little children's stories of evolutionary leftovers quickly fall apart under true scientific scrutiny. Please, feel free to try again.
Crap, there's a stupid 'back' button on the mouse and I lost everything after this....Erm. This may be a little rushed now.
Quote:
if it look like a donkey and smells like a donkey, its most likely a donkey.
Except the fossil record doesn't provide this kind of observation, so there's no parallel.
Quote:
For the last time, evolution is not a force or mechanism for creating anything. Do you understand that?!
No, you don't understand. Something created the entire variety of well ordered species, that are obviously properly designed (whether by chance or by a creator). There is some force. Evolution kind of encompasses within it natural selection, mutation, and all of that jazz. Some components of evolution are a force, namely mutations. They are a force, they're a mechanism per se. Evolution itself is just the idea that random chance changed a germ into a human after billions of years.
Quote:
You agree on mutation and the fact the human body can change thru time.
I believe mutations introduce disorder to order. The body can change, but only within the realm of dysgenics. Look it up.
Quote:
You agree on "rewritten" dna.
Genetically rewritten for the 'worst'. Of course, rarely the 'worst' will turn out to be better for the creature, ie sickle cell anemia or loss of enzyme production leading to immunity to penicillin. Great, but it still doesn't show how a germ can become anything other than a germ.
Quote:
You dont doubt the fossils found, you dont doubt the adaption of species into different environments.
No one doubts fossils. What I doubt is the imagination and fuzzy science used to interpret the so-called evolutionary timeline. But that's a whole other debate.
Quote:
Its simple: you believe in the theory of evolution, you just dont want to admit it
Nothing in life is simple. But the simple response to this statement is, "No."
Quote:
The only missing thing is that you cant understand that those changes can be radical as well... arms getting fins or the other way round.
No. We have seen no evidence that could lead us to believe this is possible. At least no evidence that stands up under scientific scrutiny.
Quote:
Though its a medical fact that our current fingers are thinner and longer then 50.000 years ago.
So? This really has no evolutionary advantage and besides, humans don't have the same natural pressures as other animals. We're also growing taller, which has nothing to do with evolution, just diet. If it turned out that was the same deal with fingers, I would be far from surprised.
Quote:
Then you ignore the fact that the whale fin is a simply degenerated human like arm.
The only thing worse than a human arm for swimming is a degenerated human arm. A whale fin is a whale fin, just because its made out of molecules that are similar to a human arm, doesn't mean it has to have anything to do with a human arm. This is just an assumption based on the belief that these things couldn't have been created, and the only alternative is that they were evolved. That's not scientific proof, that's wishful thinking.
Quote:
you wouldnt see any form of evidence even if its a big fat train heading right at you. Not because you cant but because you dont like to.
If that's true, then why did I used to believe in evolution?
Quote:
On almost all snake species, leg nubs disappear long before the snake mates.
I'm just telling you what I've read.
Quote:
Primitive snakes — such as, pythons and boa constrictors — do have nub-like legs beneath their skins and tiny, half-inch claws that protrude out above the nubs but nestle close to their bellies near the anus. Actually, even the nubs are not legs but rather a remnant of upper-leg (thigh or femur) bones. The males still use the spurs — but only during courtship and fighting — not to walk. No other snakes have legs.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2005-06-10-wonderquest_x.htm
So they serve a purpose, the idea that they used to be legs is conjecture.
Quote:
I don't want to attack your belief, but I thought the main goal of creationism was to get accepted as a scientific theory, not a belief.
Maybe for some creationists. All I ask is that we not completely assume that evolution is true, because it causes misconceptions and limited thinking. Why would I want to replace one limited thinking with another? Working within the framework that everything was created is just as detrimental (to science anyway).
Quote:
Mating seems to be a handy argument to explain vestigial limbs. The wing stubs are not even visible on the Kiwi without a close examination, and thus can hardly be used in mating rituals.
I can't argue that at this time, because I don't know enough about it. What I can point out is that its unscientific to assume that at our current level of knowledge, that we know everything. True science would look at our lack of knowledge, and instead of getting all excited that our initial understanding proves evolution or anything else, we test that hypothesis. Assumptions are counter productive and unscientific. Is it a coincidence that the more we learn about these structures or organs that we didn't know much about to begin with that we decided, "Ok, they really do have a purpose."
Secondly, this isn't proof of evolution, its meant to call into question a creator. I don't know anyone on the side of creation that would argue that animals can't lose function (via mutation), or outright lose structures. But its a complex topic, and still is a farcry from a germ becoming a worm, and then a fish and a person.
Quote:
Can you explain how a bone dangling from the end of the spine can "support our skeletal structure"? At least, according to Wikipedia it can serve as a sort of shock absorber when someone violently sits down - maybe creationists should update their websites.
As opposed to a website that let's anyone and everyone write and update its content?
It supports our organs, aids in birthing, in bowel movements, and anchors muscles. It works in tandem with certain muscles that it anchors to provide all of these services and more.
Quote:
Unlike other creationists you had at least attempted to give some serious arguments for your point of view. You're the last remaining creationist here and such steadfastness is admirable.
Thanks!
Quote:
Nevertheless, I think most people following the threads would agree that your arguments were refuted so far and you've withdrawn to repeating your belief that "good mutations don't exist".
I've still got some steam left in me. And the existence of progressive mutations go straight to the heart of the matter. That's why I'm trying to focus on them. Its the foudnation of the entire theory of evolution.
When we cause over 400 mutations on a species, and realize that not one of them has written any new data, we run into problems. These current experiments with flies have shown that you can cause speciation, but still not write anything new. Speciation is not proof of evolution. Its proof that non-evolutionary changes to chromosomes can cause breeding barriers. Great. But the definition of a species is kind of fuzzy to begin with. Unless you take all 8 (I'll admit that I'm pulling this number out of my butt, its probably closer to 5) of its meanings into account. Although not all of them can overlap.
Quote:
In case you've forgotten: The debate about mutations ended with some estimates about the probability and time scale of what you call "progressive mutations".
Can you tell me, if we don't observe mutations writing orderly data, then would you still believe that your calculations, and equations are correct? Scientifically, one would assume that they're leaving something out and go back and try and organize the data better to come to a more accurate equation.
Quote:
The result was that large scale mutations can happen within 100,000 years, which is an instant compared to the 2 billion years of life on earth.
Ok, if these mutations cause disorder or add disorder (which in some cases happens to be better for the species) then they aren't going to pile up and become large scale mutations. They'll either have no evolutionary effect, or they'll 'lose' data (which when piled up does no good for evolution's sake though it may help the species), or they'll be selected out from the species via natural selection because its harmful or reduces fitness just so.
I'm not just assuming that this is what happens, I'm basing this off of decades worth (until the modern day) of genetics experiments.
Quote:
As you haven't come forward with any arguments against that
No, scientists did the work for me.
Quote:
then it's time to come forward with some proof or evidence whatsoever that mutations can't happen.
I hope that we're on the same page, because its clear that I believe mutations can happen. They just pretty much not good for species. Even if they end up being good, genetically it still reduces order. I don't think the logic of this is very debatable. If it were, the experiments would disprove my point.
Quote:
Also you're invited to come forward and explain the becoming of life other than by evolution.
I'll be more than happy to do that another time. Right now, debating four or five evolutionists at the same time is VERY time consuming. Adding on more to the discussion is gonna be probably more than I can handle.
Quote:
But if as you say discussing it would be "attacking your faith", it's ok with me and I'll stop.
I'm saying that it seemed to me you were trying to shift the discussion away from proof of evolution and towards disproof of creation. A word like attack may be too strong, but I don't think I meant it the way you took it. I meant attack in a friendly way, if you take my meaning. We can discuss it, but I can only handle so much right now.
Quote:
This is all fine and uncontroversial when you explain the motion of waves, or the reason why weather patterns exist, and so on.
That's because the motion of waves is just a conclusion about nature. Evolution itself calls into question whether nor not creation even happened. So you're right, we don't care about waves because it doesn't call our beliefs into question. What do you think the purpose of talkorigins is?
I think I covered everything. Ugh, I have a headache. But its been fun, nonetheless. Now I need to stop ignoring my friends 
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
#68927
04/18/06 05:19
04/18/06 05:19
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
That was me. From now on, unless I log on to confirm a post as anonymous, then it wasn't me.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68928
04/18/06 05:42
04/18/06 05:42
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
i will reply to the other points as well if you like (you made a ton of mistakes. one and the biggest is the misunderstanding of mutation and evolution...still).
But i would like this question to be answered first. (and please no "because he liked to do so" babling)
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Blattsalat]
#68929
04/18/06 07:56
04/18/06 07:56
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
We see a lot of creatures today that would look suspiciously like transitional forms if all we had were bones to go by. Yet we know, by their existence, that they are not transitional because we can OBSERVE them in their natural environment, dressed in more than just their bones. So it really comes down to how accurate the evolutionary timeline really is. After all, if all of these animals weren't seperated by 100,000s to 1,000,000s of years, then the question doesn't really need to be answered. You assume that there is no question to the accuracy of the dating methods. When they give an unexpected date, it must be contaminated. Much like coal. They still can't figure out why coal has 14C in it, and yet it can't have 14C in it because coal takes millions of years to form. So they'll do whatever it takes to find that evidence. That's just one out of hundreds discrepencies with the dating methods. I'm not going to type out an explanation. It would be redundant. Here are some alternative sources to consider. Just keep in mind, skepticism is healthy. There's no need to dismiss these outright, although skepticism of skepticism can be healthy too. The first link is pretty interesting. Although maybe not as important as the other links. http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v8i9n.htmhttp://scienceagainstevolution.org/v8i8f.htmhttp://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i10f.htmhttp://scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i3f.htmI have a question for you. The morphology of the horse doesn't really fit in very well with other animals. I mean, in a more general slide show you've got arms, wings of creatures that all look fairly similar in design (bats, primates, humans, etc). Then horses pop out of nowhere with their strangely designed arms, and you get told its like that, just because that's what the horse needs. Well, if the slideshow of life is so important to you, then how come its not important when a creature doesn't fit this slideshow?
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/18/06 08:02.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
