|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:14 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Christianity and science have something of a strained relation. I am not going to attempt to reconcile them in this topic. This topic is to respond to false claims made about science, which was brought up by my viewing of Spike Zantre's profile. In it, there are ten links. For now, I am going to discuss the second and third links.
Evolution is not Science
Darwin Conspiracy
I am not going to focus on religion in this topic. It is mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Instead, I am going to attempt to demonstrate the falseness of claims made within both of these sites. While these claims deal with science, that they are used to support a religious standpoint mean some discussion of religion may be inevitable.
When following the top link, the first things I noticed were several insulting phrases directed at those who believe in evolution. I find the use of insults to be distasteful, but mostly irrelevant. Instead, I would direct attention to an article hosted on the site, meant to be a response to criticism from "evolutionists." This article seems to be a good focal point for examining this website. While I will point out a number of problems with this article, it should be taken as a comprehensive list. The first paragraph is wrong, but the second paragraph is where the main issues begin.
Second Paragraph Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the True history of the earth through His infallible Word.
This is false. Science does not "start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world." Scientists make no such assumption. Scientists do not assume a diety exists, but neither do they assume one does not. Instead, scientists look at the data at hand and look for answers. If something, in this case the existence of a diety, is not useful fin understanding the data, it is simply not incorporated. No assumption is made, so the paragraph is wrong. By being wrong, it misrepresents science. The third paragraph repeats this, but otherwise offers little of relevance.
Fourth Paragraph When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).
It is true that if the Earth could be shown to be a few thousand rather than a few billion years old, it would strongly support the Young Earth belief. However, no evidence supports such a claim, despite what this article claims. Indeed, this article makes an extremely bold claim here, but offers absolutely no evidence to support it. The remainder of the article is unimportant, as what matters is the article only "works" because it misrepresented science and made baseless claims. Undoubtedly much more could be said about this website, but I believe this demonstration sufficiently covers the material within it.
The next link makes false statements that are far more blatant. The first is near the top of the page:
Quote: You have never read about any of these fatal flaws before. Evolution scientists know about these flaws, but they have successfully covered them up with the help of a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy that actively suppresses the fact that Darwinism is not scientific but just an atheist doctrine.
The other website called people dumb, but this website goes far beyond that. Without offering any evidence at all, it states, as fact, the people who support the science of evolution are actively suppressing information to deceive the world as part of a gigantic conspiracy. This is a horrid insult, and it sounds like the ravings of a loon.
Focusing on the factual claims of this website is no better. The website purports to offer "three fatal flaws in the Theory of Evolution." The first supposed flaw mentioned is, "Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula." It is true evolution does not have a single mathematical formula describing it. However, there are hundreds of formulas used in the various studies of evolution, especially within the study of genetic evolution. It does not actually matter though, as a mathematical formula is not necessary for a theory to be valid. However, this section of the website provides a few interesting quotes:
Quote: If a theory has, in the eyes of science, been proven, the theory then gets a promotion, and rises to the level of being deemed to be a law and not just a theory. In short, a scientific law is regarded by science to be a fact, whereas a theory may or may not be true at all.
This is a common claim made by opponents of evolution. People like to say, "It is only a theory." In actuality, this is a silly statement. In science, a law is not more true than a theory. A scientific law is simply a model. When a scientific law is created, a model is created to fit the available data. If more data is found, the data may or may not contradict the law. However, there is no testing involved, no experiments ran. A theory is far more meaningful, as it actually requires testing and experimentation.
Quote: Essentially every accepted scientific theory has a mathematical formula to support it, and to prove it really works. Einstein's Theory of Relativity has e=mc2;
This statement is quite telling in that it cannot get a simple scientific statement correct. Einstein's theory of relativity is in no way proved by the formula, e=mc^2.
The second supposed flaw is, "There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution." The criticism is later phrased, "There Is No Mechanism for Adding a Gene." This is a completely false statement. Genetic mutations can come in many forms. Two common types of genetic mutations are deletions and insertions. That would be, genes being left out, or extra genes being inserted. This "fatal flaw" is nothing more than ignoring fairly basic science. This section then goes on to discuss the origin of life, criticizing evolution science about it. Evolution only deals with life that exists, so obviously criticizing evolution about how life first came about is absurd.
The third supposed flaw has the title, "Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong." The basic premise of this section is summarized in its first paragraph:
Quote: The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.
The problem with this criticism is that the first sentence is incorrect. Evolution does not claim all evolutionary steps will be good. Evolutionary steps are mostly random changes. It is true the members of a species most fit to survive are more likely to survive, but to suggest the entire field of study could be shortened to one line is foolish, and any criticism based upon it faulty.
Obviously I have not covered all the criticisms of evolution in this topic. I have not covered even a small portion of all the false criticisms leveled at evolution, much less science in general. Doing so was never my intent. Instead, I simply want to say evolution is real. Science, as a whole, is pretty sound. The examples I provided in this topic are simply to show how wrong criticisms of science coming from fundamentalists can be.
If you think there are valid scientific points coming from fundamentalists, feel free to discuss them here. However, as it stands the scientific criticisms coming from religious groups are at baseless and wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:20 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:59 am
|
|
|
|
Priestley Oh, snap. I think they just got served.
I followed the links that you posted and was pretty disgusted to see that the majority of articles resorted to personal attacks and baseless statements made from ignorance.
Could be worse-it could have been a link to the movie "Expelled". That movie had that great scene where they explained that Nazi's believed in Evolution, and you don't want to be like a Nazi, do you?
’One day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day’(2 Peter 3: cool
All arguements cleared up there. There is room for Evolution, though it is unproven. If we didn't evolve, the world is still more than 6,000 years old. I think we know that between Fossil Records and the Red Shift... I.E. the movement of planets from the center of the universe.
And, of course, you don't have to believe in human evolution. But we see lifeforms evolving every day. Remember smallpox? It can kill us now, because it EVOLVED to the point where the old vaccines are now useless. That's what evolution is, adapting to survive. And viruses do it before our eyes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:26 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:32 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:37 am
|
|
|
|
Warning: This is a freaking long post. I'll be expecting a lot of TL;DR's.
Before I start my rebuttal, I'd like to define some terms so that we do not get confused:
Evolution - An organism that changes from one kind of organism to another on a grand scale by adding genetic information. (ex. An 'ape-like ancestor' evolving into a human.)
Speciation - One species of animal changing to another species; remains the same kind of organism (ex. a Soy bean plant turning into a frost-resistant Soy Bean plant; it is a different species, but remains a kind of Soy Bean plant.)
Adaptation - An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment. (ex. A fresh-water fish is placed into a salt-water environment and survives and adapts to it's new environment; it remains the same species of fish.)
I'm really getting sick of this kind of attitude form people who say that they have evidence from their side without providing any evidence and then bashing the opposition with straw man arguments and negative labels.
zz1000zz Second Paragraph Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world. This isn't a testable conclusion; they didn't come to this conclusion by science. Creationists have the philosophical position that God has partaken in the history of this earth, and that He has revealed the True history of the earth through His infallible Word. This is false. Science does not "start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world."
It didn't say "Science," it said "Evolutionists (traditionally)." Please read more carefully.
zz1000zz Scientists make no such assumption. Scientists do not assume a diety exists, but neither do they assume one does not. Instead, scientists look at the data at hand and look for answers. If something, in this case the existence of a diety, is not useful fin understanding the data, it is simply not incorporated. No assumption is made, so the paragraph is wrong. By being wrong, it misrepresents science. The third paragraph repeats this, but otherwise offers little of relevance.
Mainstream science does not allow a scientist to say that God had something to do with anything. They have to come up with some kind of naturalistic way for it to happen without a divine entity taking part in something. If you take out God when God really was the one who did it, then any naturalistic suggestion will be wrong from the get-go and you will never find the correct answer.
zz1000zz Fourth Paragraph When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we're given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old). It is true that if the Earth could be shown to be a few thousand rather than a few billion years old, it would strongly support the Young Earth belief. However, no evidence supports such a claim, despite what this article claims. Indeed, this article makes an extremely bold claim here, but offers absolutely no evidence to support it. The remainder of the article is unimportant, as what matters is the article only "works" because it misrepresented science and made baseless claims. Undoubtedly much more could be said about this website, but I believe this demonstration sufficiently covers the material within it.
This is an outright lie. There is plenty of evidence supporting Young Earth Creationism, but if you don't look at it, then you will not find it. You're looking at a summarization of the viewpoints of both the Creationist and Evolutionist standpoints, not an article witch details and explains some Creationist evidence, so of course you're not going to find evidence in that article. There's plenty of evidence that you would have seen in the other articles if you didn't just go in there just to criticize it and pick a totally irrelevant article to bash.
Scientists still make mistakes, the Bible never changes.
zz1000zz The next link makes false statements that are far more blatant. The first is near the top of the page: Quote: You have never read about any of these fatal flaws before. Evolution scientists know about these flaws, but they have successfully covered them up with the help of a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy that actively suppresses the fact that Darwinism is not scientific but just an atheist doctrine. The other website called people dumb, but this website goes far beyond that. Without offering any evidence at all, it states, as fact, the people who support the science of evolution are actively suppressing information to deceive the world as part of a gigantic conspiracy. This is a horrid insult, and it sounds like the ravings of a loon.
You honestly need to learn how a website works. Some parts of a website are there to say why something else is wrong, while other articles give you evidence. You're not going to find Creationist support in every single article examining evolution.
zz1000zz Focusing on the factual claims of this website is no better. The website purports to offer "three fatal flaws in the Theory of Evolution." The first supposed flaw mentioned is, "Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula." It is true evolution does not have a single mathematical formula describing it. However, there are hundreds of formulas used in the various studies of evolution, especially within the study of genetic evolution. It does not actually matter though, as a mathematical formula is not necessary for a theory to be valid. However, this section of the website provides a few interesting quotes: Quote: If a theory has, in the eyes of science, been proven, the theory then gets a promotion, and rises to the level of being deemed to be a law and not just a theory. In short, a scientific law is regarded by science to be a fact, whereas a theory may or may not be true at all. This is a common claim made by opponents of evolution. People like to say, "It is only a theory." In actuality, this is a silly statement. In science, a law is not more true than a theory. A scientific law is simply a model. When a scientific law is created, a model is created to fit the available data. If more data is found, the data may or may not contradict the law. However, there is no testing involved, no experiments ran. A theory is far more meaningful, as it actually requires testing and experimentation.
I'd like to point out that there is a scientific heirarchy of truth:
About.com HypothesisPerhaps the most difficult and intriguing step is the development of a specific, testable hypothesis. A useful hypothesis enables predictions by applying deductive reasoning, often in the form of mathematical analysis. It is a limited statement regarding the cause and effect in a specific situation, which can be tested by experimentation and observation or by statistical analysis of the probabilities from the data obtained. The outcome of the test hypothesis should be currently unknown, so that the results can provide useful data regarding the validity of the hypothesis. Sometimes a hypothesis is developed that must wait for new knowledge or technology to be testable. The concept of atoms was proposed by the ancient Greeks, who had no means of testing it. Centuries later, when more knowledge became available, the hypothesis gained support and was eventually proven, though it has had to be amended many times over the year. Atoms are not indivisible, as the Greeks supposed. Model A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity. The Bohr model of the atom, for example, depicts electrons circling the atomic nucleus in a fashion similar to planets in the solar system. This model is useful in determining the energies of the quantum states of the electron in the simple hydrogen atom, but it is by no means represents the true nature of the atom. Theory & LawA scientific theory or lawrepresents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years. Generally, a law uses a handful of fundamental concepts and equations to define the rules governing a set of phenomena.
The theory is not a theory unless it can pass the scientific method and has some evidence. The "Theory of Evolution" is not even a theory, let alone a fact. It remains a mere model. If there truly is some REAL evidence for evolution, show me it instead of telling me there is no evidence supporting Creationism.
zz1000zz Quote: Essentially every accepted scientific theory has a mathematical formula to support it, and to prove it really works. Einstein's Theory of Relativity has e=mc2; This statement is quite telling in that it cannot get a simple scientific statement correct. Einstein's theory of relativity is in no way proved by the formula, e=mc^2.
No, but practically every theory has at least one equation to support it and gives a clear-cut way to test itself. The theory of evolution cannot be tested.
zz1000zz The second supposed flaw is, "There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution." The criticism is later phrased, "There Is No Mechanism for Adding a Gene." This is a completely false statement. Genetic mutations can come in many forms. Two common types of genetic mutations are deletions and insertions. That would be, genes being left out, or extra genes being inserted. This "fatal flaw" is nothing more than ignoring fairly basic science. This section then goes on to discuss the origin of life, criticizing evolution science about it. Evolution only deals with life that exists, so obviously criticizing evolution about how life first came about is absurd.
You're ignoring basic logic here. Show me a beneficial mutation that doesn't involve a loss of data. Even if there was a beneficial mutation, it would have a limit or be compromised by a negative mutation. It's impossible for even Natural Selection to select this trait out if a negative mutation kills off the species before the 'good' trait can spread. Even then, there's a 50% chance that the trait will even be passed on to the next generation in sexual reproduction.
zz1000zz The third supposed flaw has the title, "Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong." The basic premise of this section is summarized in its first paragraph: Quote: The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw. The problem with this criticism is that the first sentence is incorrect. Evolution does not claim all evolutionary steps will be good. Evolutionary steps are mostly random changes. It is true the members of a species most fit to survive are more likely to survive, but to suggest the entire field of study could be shortened to one line is foolish, and any criticism based upon it faulty.
Evolution cannot happen without a beneficial mutation that adds genetic information. An amoeba cannot keep the same genetic materials and evolve into a better higher without adding information and beneficial traits.
zz1000zz Obviously I have not covered all the criticisms of evolution in this topic. I have not covered even a small portion of all the false criticisms leveled at evolution, much less science in general. Doing so was never my intent. Instead, I simply want to say evolution is real. Science, as a whole, is pretty sound. The examples I provided in this topic are simply to show how wrong criticisms of science coming from fundamentalists can be. If you think there are valid scientific points coming from fundamentalists, feel free to discuss them here. However, as it stands the scientific criticisms coming from religious groups are at baseless and wrong.
Speciation has been observed, and is real.
Adaptations have been observed and proven.
Evolution has never been observed, and has no evidence to support it.
Evolution is not science, it's fantasy. Every time you read a book that says "Millions/Billions of years ago...(insert garbage here) roamed the earth," what it's really telling you is "Once upon a time..." Evolution is a fairy tale for adults; nothing more.
If anything, this is in support of science, not against it. Evolution is, once again, NOT science, and not even a valid theory. It remains a mere scientific model, and is not subject to the scientific method.
Give me proof of evolution before you ask for proof of creation.
Now for some of my evidence for a Worldwide Flood:
Polystrate fossil trees are found spanning across several layers of rock with no erosion marks all over the world. Could those trees really have stayed there for millions of years for the dirt to bury them without rotting? No, they were buried by the Flood of Noah. 1
If you have a few different types of sediments and put them in a bottle of water, then shake it up and wait a while, you'll see the sediments organize themselves into layers. The Flood could have easily done this on a grand scale. The fossils would also have been organized by their density or their position on the Earth. (Sea creatures are found on the bottom because they are below the land before the flood, birds in the higher strata because of their dominion in the air and their lesser bone density.)
However, fossils of sea creatures are found high up in the tallest mountains. These creatures had to have been pushed up as the mountains rose after a catastophic occurance, such as the Flood and rising of the mountains as described in Genesis.
We did not evolve from Ape-like ancestors
EvolutionFacts.org NeanderthalIn 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists; and, for a number of years, all agreed that these were normal human beings. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight... ...They may also have lived longer than men do today. Biblical records indicate that those living just after the Flood (on down to Abraham and even Moses) had somewhat longer life spans than we do today. In 1973, *H. Israel explained that certain living individuals today begin to develop Neanderthaloid features—the heavy eyebrow ridges, elongated cranial vault, and so on—with extreme age. There is definite evidence that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old.
Java ManIn September 1891 near the village of Trinil in a damp place by the Solo River, *Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. *Dubois assumed that (1) all these bones were from the same individual, and (2) that they were as much as a million years old. Nearby, in the same condition (indicating the same approximate age), he also found two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls), but he did not publicize this find; for they had a cranial capacity somewhat above that of modern man. Thirty-one years later, in 1922, he admitted the Wadjak skull was an ape. 2
The horse did not evolve from the Eohippus. The bones that were found were not in the same rock layers and were drastically far apart from each other.
If Archaeopteryx is genuine, then it was a bird, and nothing more. It had hollow bones, when the reptiles did not. The feathers were fully functional and no prior transitions have been found. There is no mechanism that shows how a scale can turn into a feather. Other birds were found in the same layer as Archaeopteryx. It could also be a unique species like the Platypus. Modern birds have been found in the Jurrasic layers of the Geologic Column. And perhaps most importantly, modern birds have been found below it. 1
As for the days in Genesis:
The days in Genesis use the Hebrew word "yom" for "day," and use it in the sense of a single rotation of the Earth, and the same word is used to describe a normal 24-hour day every other time that it's used in the Old Testament.
GotQuestions.org Now let’s look at the context in which we find the word "yom" used in Genesis 1:5-2:2... Day 1 - "And God called the light 'day' [yom] and the darkness he called 'night.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIRST DAY [yom]" (Genesis 1:5). Day 2 - "So God called the firmament 'Heaven.' So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SECOND DAY [yom]" (Genesis 1:8 ). Day 3 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the THIRD DAY [yom]" (Genesis 1:13). Day 4 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FOURTH DAY [yom]" (Genesis 1:19). Day 5 - "So the EVENING and the MORNING were the FIFTH DAY [yom]" (Genesis 1:23). Day 6 - "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the EVENING and the MORNING were the SIXTH DAY [yom]" (Genesis 1:31). Day 7 - "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the SEVENTH DAY [yom] from all His work which He had done" (Genesis 2:1-2). By describing each day as “the evening and the morning” it is quite clear that the Author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation up until the 1800s when a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community, and the Earth's sedimentary strata layers were reinterpreted. Whereas previously the rock layers were interpreted as evidence of Noah's flood, the flood was thrown out by the scientific community and the rock layers were reinterpreted as evidence for an excessively old earth. Some well meaning but terribly mistaken Christians then sought to reconcile this new anti-Flood, ant-Bible interpretation with the Genesis account by reinterpreting "yom" to mean vast unspecified periods of time. This was a mistake.
Majority opinion in the scientific community isn't always correct:
People used to believe the Earth was flat. It's wrong.
People used to believe that big rocks fell faster than little rocks. It's wrong.
People used to believe that flies and rats could spontaneously generate if you put some bread or cheese in a corner of your room. It's wrong.
Popular opinion isn't always correct: Real science proves what it right.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:40 pm
|
|
|
|
I started typing up a rather lengthy post in response to the last one, but then I realized it wasn't needed. The definition of evolution offered in it is wrong, so the criticisms of evolution that follow it are obviously wrong. The definition in Spike Zantren's post:
Quote: Evolution - An organism that changes from one kind of organism to another on a grand scale by adding genetic information. (ex. An 'ape-like ancestor' evolving into a human.)
Now then, no source for this definition was provided. I do not know where it came from, but it is wrong on a staggering level. I mean, how does, "An organism that..." make any sense? Evolution is a process, not an organism. It certainly is not "an orgarnism that changes from one kind of organism to another," which sounds like some sort of sci-fi creature shapeshifting into different forms.
Moreover, evolution does not require a change in species. The definition in Wikipedia is far more in line of what science says:
Quote: In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
Wikipedia may not be the most "reliable" source, but this definition is in line with what science says, unlike the made up definition found in Spike Zantren's post. I do not see any point in worrying about criticisms if they are made without even the most basic understanding of what is being criticized. Incidentally:
Spike Zantren People used to believe the Earth was flat. It's wrong.
Science has never thought the Earth was flat. People have known the planet was round for over fifteen hundred years.
P.S. I am just going to ignore the personal attacks in Spike Zantren's post, such as him calling me a liar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:26 pm
|
|
|
|
Zz got to this before I did.
First of all, there really is no difference between adaptation and evolution. Evolution is just adaptation over a much longer period of time. Wooly mammoths, predecessors to the elephant, mutated and adapted as the earth changed, and eventually we got elephants. I don't know all the details of how it happened, but I do know that's the gist of it. I can look up the details of it for you later, if you want.
Also, the thing about babies being weak and this being like, one of the huge things that calls shenanigans on evolution is ... crap, to say the least. Every notice how babies are ADORABLE? Ever notice how the things we like to take care of the most are also ADORABLE? Big eyes, tiny facial features, endearing behaviors? This, in itself, is not an evolutionary weakness- that is the strength of an infant in order for it to survive. Our brains have developed in a way that triggers a protective instinct when we see these features, in order to protect our own progeny, and as a way for an infant to survive. Evolutionists and psychologists agree on this point.
A theory does not need a mathematical formula to prove its credibility. In fact, many scientists who have used math to prove their theories have been wrong. Clark Hull, for instance, who had an entire mathematical equation to predict human behavior was way wrong. The only reason anyone likes him is because his theory is falsifiable. That's good science, even though it's wrong. Even the definition you gave of theory and law shows this. Generally an equation or formula is required- not always. The theory of evolution has actually passed the tests put on it by the scientific method. It can't be proven, because no one has invented a time machine yet, but there is staggering evidence that supports it- fossils records, speciation, even today, looking at humans, and the fact that most people are born without wisdom teeth these days. However, it remains only a theory because it can't be proven. Science doesn't deem to prove anything anyway. A good scientist will never say his theory proves anything. That's because a good scientist knows that someone else can come in at any time with new information that totally shows his theory is incorrect. Theories can change- and have changed- all the time. It is laws that science assumes are constant, unchangeable, etc. Science, in some ways, actually requires alot more faith than religion.
The rest of the stuff really is too long, and I didn't read it. But I think I've made my point nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:32 am
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:00 pm
|
|
|
|
I go a little overboard with the mondo-huge posting, but please take the time to read it. I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong, but I will defend my position as I see fit.
zz1000zz I started typing up a rather lengthy post in response to the last one, but then I realized it wasn't needed. The definition of evolution offered in it is wrong, so the criticisms of evolution that follow it are obviously wrong. The definition in Spike Zantren's post: Quote: Evolution - An organism that changes from one kind of organism to another on a grand scale by adding genetic information. (ex. An 'ape-like ancestor' evolving into a human.) Now then, no source for this definition was provided. I do not know where it came from, but it is wrong on a staggering level. I mean, how does, "An organism that..." make any sense? Evolution is a process, not an organism. It certainly is not "an orgarnism that changes from one kind of organism to another," which sounds like some sort of sci-fi creature shapeshifting into different forms.
Bad verbage on my part. What I meant is that Evolution involves one kind of organism evolving into another kind of organism.
zz1000zz Moreover, evolution does not require a change in species. The definition in Wikipedia is far more in line of what science says: Quote: In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Wikipedia may not be the most "reliable" source, but this definition is in line with what science says, unlike the made up definition found in Spike Zantren's post.
The reason I do not use "what science says" about evolution is because the term 'evolution' can be bent and twisted to mean anything. A white person and a black person having a mixed-race child "because of inherited traits" is not evolution, it's a variation within a species, and isn't beneficial or negative in the long run.
I do not dispute speciation or variation within a species. I do dispute whether or not mammals and birds came from reptiles, or reptiles from fish, or men from 'ape-like creatures'.
zz1000zz I do not see any point in worrying about criticisms if they are made without even the most basic understanding of what is being criticized. Incidentally: Spike Zantren People used to believe the Earth was flat. It's wrong. Science has never thought the Earth was flat. People have known the planet was round for over fifteen hundred years.
Thank you for pointing that out. Now please try to explain away my other examples.
zz1000zz P.S. I am just going to ignore the personal attacks in Spike Zantren's post, such as him calling me a liar.
I was responding to your comment saying that there is no evidence for a young Earth, which is false. As I said, if you don't want to look for evidence, then you will not find any. Taking indirect shots at me isn't very polite either.
zz1000zz Fushigi na Butterfly Zz got to this before I did.
First of all, there really is no difference between adaptation and evolution. Just a point of clarity. Since genetic adaptation is effectively the same as evolution, usually one would avoid using "adaptation" that way to avoid confusion with its other uses.
There's a massive difference, as I have pointed out earlier.
Fushigi na Butterfly Evolution is just adaptation over a much longer period of time.
Small adaptations do not cause an aligator to lay a bird egg, or a Monkey to learn how to speak a complete language. Secondly, there isn't enough time for evolution to occur, even if it did happen. I can give you more details in a later post if you wish.
Fushigi na Butterfly Wooly mammoths, predecessors to the elephant, mutated and adapted as the earth changed, and eventually we got elephants. I don't know all the details of how it happened, but I do know that's the gist of it. I can look up the details of it for you later, if you want.
This is an example of an adaptation, and not evolution. The mammoth and elephant are the same 'kind' of animal, just as a dog, wolf, or coyote are the same 'kind' of animal. Also, losing fur isn't gaining genetic information, it's losing it; that's devolution, not evolution.
Fushigi na Butterfly Also, the thing about babies being weak and this being like, one of the huge things that calls shenanigans on evolution is ... crap, to say the least. Every notice how babies are ADORABLE? Ever notice how the things we like to take care of the most are also ADORABLE? Big eyes, tiny facial features, endearing behaviors? This, in itself, is not an evolutionary weakness- that is the strength of an infant in order for it to survive. Our brains have developed in a way that triggers a protective instinct when we see these features, in order to protect our own progeny, and as a way for an infant to survive. Evolutionists and psychologists agree on this point.
That's interesting, I'd like to read more about that, could you give me a link to a place where I can read/watch it? (No, I'm not being accusative, I really would like to learn more about it.)
Fushigi na Butterfly A theory does not need a mathematical formula to prove its credibility. In fact, many scientists who have used math to prove their theories have been wrong.
Then that's successful use of mathematical formulas to validate (or invalidate) a theory.
Fushigi na Butterfly Clark Hull, for instance, who had an entire mathematical equation to predict human behavior was way wrong.
Human behaviour isn't logical; you cannot put a formula on an illogical thing such as the human mind.
Fushigi na Butterfly The only reason anyone likes him is because his theory is falsifiable. That's good science, even though it's wrong. Even the definition you gave of theory and law shows this.
Exactly. Evolution is not good science. If evolution was good science, we would have thrown it out along with its false evidence long ago. Almost anyone who doesn't go along with the theory gets excommunicated from the scientific community and is then no longer called a scientist, or they're demoted to "lab assistant," cleaning test tubes and washing spills, so nobody can fight against the theory and be considered competent any longer.
Fushigi na Butterfly Generally an equation or formula is required- not always.
That is already addressed by the website in question:
Darwin Conspiracy [Editor's Note: There are just a handful of scientific laws that have not been directly formularized but they all either indirectly produce formulae or we can easily derive 'formula equivalents.' For example, Lenz's law has a formula equivalent (north + north = repulsion) and Newton's first law of motion gave rise to the law of inertia, which has a formula. For these reasons, we still can reasonably regard such laws as having provided humanity with formulae.]
Fushigi na Butterfly The theory of evolution has actually passed the tests put on it by the scientific method.
Let's examine the scientific method:
1. Observation
We exist.
2. Proposal of a question or a problem
How did we get here?
3. A hypothesis or educated guess made - Model
We evolved from a soup of goo, to single cells, to multiple cells, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans.
4. Scientific experimentation
Oh wait, that's right. There is no way to experiment with evolution. No one has ever done an experiment that made a lower creature turn into a higher creature and without that empirical evidence evolution can not leave the hypothesis or model phase.
Fushigi na Butterfly It can't be proven, because no one has invented a time machine yet, but there is staggering evidence that supports it- fossils records, speciation, even today, looking at humans, and the fact that most people are born without wisdom teeth these days.
Fossils don't prove anything as far as evolution is concerned. There's no proof that creature ever had any kids, let alone one that lived. People born without wisdom teeth, once again, isn't evolution, it's devolution.
Fushigi na Butterfly However, it remains only a theory because it can't be proven. Science doesn't deem to prove anything anyway. A good scientist will never say his theory proves anything. That's because a good scientist knows that someone else can come in at any time with new information that totally shows his theory is incorrect.
Then why ignore all the evidence against evolution, such as the polystrate fossil trees, the lack of any true evidence supporting the theory, and the evidence that supports a global flood?
Fushigi na Butterfly Theories can change- and have changed- all the time.
Somebody needs to change the theory of evolution. They could start out by removing the lies in my textbook, such as vestigial organs being evidence for evolution when they're not. 1
As well as my textbook showing these fraudulent drawings and saying that "comparative embryology" supports evolution when the real photos show what it really is:
Fushigi na Butterfly It is laws that science assumes are constant, unchangeable, etc. Science, in some ways, actually requires alot more faith than religion.
Thank you for admitting that.
Fushigi na Butterfly The rest of the stuff really is too long, and I didn't read it. But I think I've made my point nonetheless.
I encourage you to find the time to finish it. I spent a lot of time writing it. crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:48 pm
|
|
|
|
Spike Zantren Fushigi na Butterfly Evolution is just adaptation over a much longer period of time. Small adaptations do not cause an aligator to lay a bird egg, or a Monkey to learn how to speak a complete language.
Wrong and wrong. Small adaptations over a long period of time do allow an alligator to lay a bird egg. At that point, the alligator is probably not an alligator anymore, and is probably a bird, but there were changes that occurred over time that got the alligator from alligator to bird. And monkeys learning sign language has nothing to do with evolution, unless you're looking at brain development and cognitive/language skills. confused
Quote: Secondly, there isn't enough time for evolution to occur, even if it did happen. I can give you more details in a later post if you wish.
Obviously, there is, since it's happened.
Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly Wooly mammoths, predecessors to the elephant, mutated and adapted as the earth changed, and eventually we got elephants. I don't know all the details of how it happened, but I do know that's the gist of it. I can look up the details of it for you later, if you want. This is an example of an adaptation, and not evolution.
As I said before, only difference is that evolution is many adaptations over a long period of time.
Quote: The mammoth and elephant are the same 'kind' of animal, just as a dog, wolf, or coyote are the same 'kind' of animal. Also, losing fur isn't gaining genetic information, it's losing it; that's devolution, not evolution.
How can you be so sure that losing a physical feature is losing genetic material? Perhaps they gained the genetic material necessary for them to regulate their body temperature in another way.
Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly Also, the thing about babies being weak and this being like, one of the huge things that calls shenanigans on evolution is ... crap, to say the least. Every notice how babies are ADORABLE? Ever notice how the things we like to take care of the most are also ADORABLE? Big eyes, tiny facial features, endearing behaviors? This, in itself, is not an evolutionary weakness- that is the strength of an infant in order for it to survive. Our brains have developed in a way that triggers a protective instinct when we see these features, in order to protect our own progeny, and as a way for an infant to survive. Evolutionists and psychologists agree on this point. That's interesting, I'd like to read more about that, could you give me a link to a place where I can read/watch it? (No, I'm not being accusative, I really would like to learn more about it.)
I will see what I can find. Hopefully I can get some PDFs from my school's database that I can share with you, or find some other evidence/data from studies done on this.
Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly A theory does not need a mathematical formula to prove its credibility. In fact, many scientists who have used math to prove their theories have been wrong. Then that's successful use of mathematical formulas to validate (or invalidate) a theory.
Sometimes. Not always. Sometimes math just isn't necessary or useful to make a point.
Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly Clark Hull, for instance, who had an entire mathematical equation to predict human behavior was way wrong. Human behaviour isn't logical; you cannot put a formula on an illogical thing such as the human mind.
Well, right, we know that. After subjecting his mathematical theory to a battery of decades of tests. It was a good theory, albeit wrong. Science just loves proving itself wrong. xd
Quote: Exactly. Evolution is not good science.
Falsifiable doesn't mean that it can be proven wrong. Falsifiable means that it can be tested to see if it's wrong. Whether it turns out to be wrong or right is irrelevant. The science behind the theory of evolution is totally falsifiable, totally good science. stare
Quote: Almost anyone who doesn't go along with the theory gets excommunicated from the scientific community and is then no longer called a scientist, or they're demoted to "lab assistant," cleaning test tubes and washing spills, so nobody can fight against the theory and be considered competent any longer.
Show me evidence of this. I consider myself a scientist, and I believe both theories- Creationism and Evolution- have very compelling arguments and amounts of evidence. I don't think anyone's an idiot for believing either one, only when they ignore the evidence towards them. That's what science's problem is with people who don't believe in evolution. Not that they don't believe, but that they are totally ignorant of the evidence that supports it.
Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly Generally an equation or formula is required- not always. That is already addressed by the website in question: Darwin Conspiracy [Editor's Note: There are just a handful of scientific laws that have not been directly formularized but they all either indirectly produce formulae or we can easily derive 'formula equivalents.' For example, Lenz's law has a formula equivalent (north + north = repulsion) and Newton's first law of motion gave rise to the law of inertia, which has a formula. For these reasons, we still can reasonably regard such laws as having provided humanity with formulae.]
I still don't think that's necessarily true. What about behavioral laws? Laws like the Law of Effect, which states that if you do something and get a positive response, you're likely to do it again? How do you turn that into math? confused
Quote: Let's examine the scientific method: 1. Observation We exist. 2. Proposal of a question or a problem How did we get here? 3. A hypothesis or educated guess made - Model We evolved from a soup of goo, to single cells, to multiple cells, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans. 4. Scientific experimentation Oh wait, that's right. There is no way to experiment with evolution. No one has ever done an experiment that made a lower creature turn into a higher creature and without that empirical evidence evolution can not leave the hypothesis or model phase.
Evolution doesn't necessarily have to incorporate a lower organism "turning into" a higher organism. Evolution just means change. Ever heard of Gregor Mendel and what he did with peas? That's evolution, albeit it on a much smaller scale. The genes were manipulated, much like what the environment does naturally, and the result was a different kind of pea. Evolution is change from one organism or type of organism into another- not all changes are beneficial or serve a purpose. That's why, when nature does it, they're called mutations.
Also, take a look at your pinky. Notice how it's smaller than the rest of your fingers? Hasn't always been that way. Pinkies are getting smaller; they'll eventually disappear. Or how about that Y chromosome that, as small as it is, makes you so different from me? Scientists speculate that it's just a mutated and dwarfed X chromosome that's gradually getting smaller and smaller.
Evolution is observable, just not the evolutions that have already taken place.
Quote: Fossils don't prove anything as far as evolution is concerned. There's no proof that creature ever had any kids, let alone one that lived. Well, that's strange. I was pretty sure that there were only two of every kind of dinosaur living ever. Some of them had to have offspring, and those offspring weren't always exact replicas of their parents I assure you. You an exact clone of both your parents?Quote: People born without wisdom teeth, once again, isn't evolution, it's devolution. Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly However, it remains only a theory because it can't be proven. Science doesn't deem to prove anything anyway. A good scientist will never say his theory proves anything. That's because a good scientist knows that someone else can come in at any time with new information that totally shows his theory is incorrect. Then why ignore all the evidence against evolution, such as the polystrate fossil trees, the lack of any true evidence supporting the theory, and the evidence that supports a global flood? Quote: Somebody needs to change the theory of evolution. They could start out by removing the lies in my textbook, such as vestigial organs being evidence for evolution when they're not. 1As well as my textbook showing these fraudulent photos and saying that "comparative embryology" supports evolution. Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly The rest of the stuff really is too long, and I didn't read it. But I think I've made my point nonetheless. I encourage you to find the time to finish it. I spent a lot of time writing it. crying |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Fushigi na Butterfly Fushigi na Butterfly Evolution is just adaptation over a much longer period of time. Spike Zantren Small adaptations do not cause an aligator to lay a bird egg, or a Monkey to learn how to speak a complete language.
Please show me some evidence of an alligator evolving into a bird.
Fushigi na Butterfly And monkeys learning sign language has nothing to do with evolution, unless you're looking at brain development and cognitive/language skills. confused
I said nothing about sign language, I said speak a complete language. So yes, I'm referring to brain development and cognitive/language skills.
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Secondly, there isn't enough time for evolution to occur, even if it did happen. I can give you more details in a later post if you wish.
No, it didn't.
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly Wooly mammoths, predecessors to the elephant, mutated and adapted as the earth changed, and eventually we got elephants. I don't know all the details of how it happened, but I do know that's the gist of it. I can look up the details of it for you later, if you want. This is an example of an adaptation, and not evolution.
Um, no. I really wish you would read more carefully to the point I'm trying to make.
Spike Zantren Evolution involves one kind of organism evolving into another kind of organism... ...The mammoth and elephant are the same 'kind' of animal, just as a dog, wolf, or coyote are the same 'kind' of animal.
Adaptations are changes in an organism that do not include the adding of DNA or the changing from one kind of creature to another kind of creature, so please stop mixing terms.
Since you guys love using Wikipedia, I'll use something from it as well:
Wikipedia Adaptations are traits that have been selected by natural selection. The underlying genetic basis for the adaptive trait did not arise as a consequence of the environment; the genetic variant pre-existed and was subsequently selected because it provided the bearer of that variant some advantage. (Emphasis added)
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: The mammoth and elephant are the same 'kind' of animal, just as a dog, wolf, or coyote are the same 'kind' of animal. Also, losing fur isn't gaining genetic information, it's losing it; that's devolution, not evolution.
Perhaps losing fur is not the result of a loss of genetic material. However, even if it is not, it's still not a genetic advancement, so it's not evolution; it would still be an adaptation.
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly A theory does not need a mathematical formula to prove its credibility. In fact, many scientists who have used math to prove their theories have been wrong. Then that's successful use of mathematical formulas to validate (or invalidate) a theory.
In this case, it would be extremely useful to prove a point. Especially when the process hasn't been observed.
Fushigi na Butterfly Science just loves proving itself wrong. xd
Makes you wonder why we trust it.
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Exactly. Evolution is not good science.
Evolution has countless evidence against it, as well as the idea that the Earth is billions of years old. The problem is that people don't want to hear it.
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Almost anyone who doesn't go along with the theory gets excommunicated from the scientific community and is then no longer called a scientist, or they're demoted to "lab assistant," cleaning test tubes and washing spills, so nobody can fight against the theory and be considered competent any longer.
Here's one example.
And another.
Fushigi na Butterfly I consider myself a scientist, and I believe both theories- Creationism and Evolution- have very compelling arguments and amounts of evidence. I don't think anyone's an idiot for believing either one, only when they ignore the evidence towards them.
I'm not calling someone who believes in evolution an idiot. I'm saying that the evidence used to support evolution is fraudulent.
Fushigi na Butterfly That's what science's problem is with people who don't believe in evolution. Not that they don't believe, but that they are totally ignorant of the evidence that supports it.
Once again, please show me some real verifiable evidence.
Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly Generally an equation or formula is required- not always. That is already addressed by the website in question: Darwin Conspiracy [Editor's Note: There are just a handful of scientific laws that have not been directly formularized but they all either indirectly produce formulae or we can easily derive 'formula equivalents.' For example, Lenz's law has a formula equivalent (north + north = repulsion) and Newton's first law of motion gave rise to the law of inertia, which has a formula. For these reasons, we still can reasonably regard such laws as having provided humanity with formulae.]
I could give it a shot if you linked me to a site detailing the law.
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Let's examine the scientific method: 1. Observation We exist. 2. Proposal of a question or a problem How did we get here? 3. A hypothesis or educated guess made - Model We evolved from a soup of goo, to single cells, to multiple cells, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans. 4. Scientific experimentation Oh wait, that's right. There is no way to experiment with evolution. No one has ever done an experiment that made a lower creature turn into a higher creature and without that empirical evidence evolution can not leave the hypothesis or model phase.
No, it goes beyond that, as I stated earlier.
Fushigi na Butterfly Ever heard of Gregor Mendel and what he did with peas?
Yes, I have.
Fushigi na Butterfly That's evolution, albeit it on a much smaller scale. The genes were manipulated, much like what the environment does naturally, and the result was a different kind of pea.
What did he start out with? Pea plants.
What did he end with? Pea plants.
Sorry, but that's adaptation, not evolution.
Fushigi na Butterfly Evolution is change from one organism or type of organism into another- not all changes are beneficial or serve a purpose. That's why, when nature does it, they're called mutations.
Mutations do not add genetic information, they merely mix up information that the gene code already has.
You may see a five-legged bull, but the genetic information to create a leg already existed within the gene code.
Fushigi na Butterfly Also, take a look at your pinky. Notice how it's smaller than the rest of your fingers? Hasn't always been that way. Pinkies are getting smaller; they'll eventually disappear. Or how about that Y chromosome that, as small as it is, makes you so different from me? Scientists speculate that it's just a mutated and dwarfed X chromosome that's gradually getting smaller and smaller.
Wow, maybe women will become extinct once the Y chromosome's so small that it's gone, then there will be no more babies, and no babies means the end of humans. That's pretty sad.
Fushigi na Butterfly Evolution is observable, just not the evolutions that have already taken place.
Evolution is not observable; adaptations are.
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Fossils don't prove anything as far as evolution is concerned. There's no proof that creature ever had any kids, let alone one that lived. Well, that's strange. I was pretty sure that there were only two of every kind of dinosaur living ever. Some of them had to have offspring, and those offspring weren't always exact replicas of their parents I assure you. You an exact clone of both your parents?
Nope, I'm just the next generation of a slowly deteriorating race that has been losing genetic complexity since the fall of Adam and the Flood of Noah.
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: People born without wisdom teeth, once again, isn't evolution, it's devolution.
I haven't seen you address this. Please tell me again.
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly However, it remains only a theory because it can't be proven. Science doesn't deem to prove anything anyway. A good scientist will never say his theory proves anything. That's because a good scientist knows that someone else can come in at any time with new information that totally shows his theory is incorrect. Then why ignore all the evidence against evolution, such as the polystrate fossil trees, the lack of any true evidence supporting the theory, and the evidence that supports a global flood?
You're right. I don't see how a 7-day literal creation with no death before sin can be compatible with a billions of years theory of evolution involving countless deaths in order for natural selection to guide the evolution process.
Fushigi na Butterfly Quote: Somebody needs to change the theory of evolution. They could start out by removing the lies in my textbook, such as vestigial organs being evidence for evolution when they're not. 1As well as my textbook showing these fraudulent photos and saying that "comparative embryology" supports evolution.
Funny, they look nothing alike to me. And the point I'm trying to make is that the fake drawings shown above are being used in my Biology textbook as evidence for evolution and is insinuating that these pictures are accurate, when in fact they are not.
Fushigi na Butterfly Ever heard of the Recapitulation Theory? It's the idea that, as organisms develop (both in the womb and shortly thereafter), we go through all the phases of adaptation and evolution, from single-celled organism to advanced thinking animal.
We're already given the genetic information to go through the process of going from a zygote to a baby through the DNA of the mother and father.
Fushigi na Butterfly Pretty much no one buys into the theory, but it is quite compelling, and I feel there is some smidgen of truth to it.
Perhaps nobody buys into the theory because it's wrong. Just a guess.
Fushigi na Butterfly I might. I'm sure I've seen all the creationism evidence before. Like I said, I see both theories as complementary, rather than mutually exclusive.
See above
Fushigi na Butterfly I really don't feel I need convincing one way or the other. In the end, it doesn't matter whether God created the universe in a literal six days or if He took His time
I think it's incredibly important to the credibility of Jesus and His Word.
19:4-6 Matthew Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27, 5:2, and 2:24. He refers to the Genesis account as a literal event.
Matthew 19:4-6 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Fushigi na Butterfly either way is a huge testament to His creativity and authority over the powers and laws that make up this huge place we call home. I don't put either capability past Him. 3nodding
I think God's smart enough to get His creation right on the first try.
Believe what you want, but I'd take the all-knowing God's Word at face value with it's evidence than believe what some flawed 'science' and unsupported theories say.
I'm willing to listen to evidence, but if you can't show me some, then there's no reason for me to believe it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:44 pm
|
|
|
|
Spike Zantren Bad verbage on my part. What I meant is that Evolution involves one kind of organism evolving into another kind of organism.
Would you either disagree with the definition I offered, and hold your own definition as true (aside from bad wording), or would you accept the definition I offered as correct? As it stands you... Nevermind, I just read a little farther into your post.
Spike Zantren The reason I do not use "what science says" about evolution is because the term 'evolution' can be bent and twisted to mean anything.
No it cannot. Scientists are extremely clear on what evolution means. The only people attempting to bend and twist its meaning are you, and the people like you. It is extremely absurd to bastardize a concept, then criticize the concept based upon said bastardization.
Spike Zantren I was responding to your comment saying that there is no evidence for a young Earth, which is false.
There is no evidence for a young Earth. You have claimed there is, but you have made no effort to provide any such evidence. You can continue to claim there is evidence, but unless you actually provide material to discuss you are just making things up.
Spike Zantren There's a massive difference, as I have pointed out earlier.
You "pointed [this] out earlier" by making up definitions that were illogical, and contradicted the actual scientific definition. You then complained that the definitions could be "bent and twisted."
I am more than willing to discuss any issues people may have with science. Just please, before we do have a discussion, stop making things up about science.
Edit: Just because it needs a response:
Spike Zantren Fushigi na Butterfly Spike Zantren Almost anyone who doesn't go along with the theory gets excommunicated from the scientific community and is then no longer called a scientist, or they're demoted to "lab assistant," cleaning test tubes and washing spills, so nobody can fight against the theory and be considered competent any longer.
Neither of these "examples" are evidence of what was claimed.
Edited Again: This really needs a response:
Spike Zantren Mutations do not add genetic information, they merely mix up information that the gene code already has.
Insertion mutations are extremely common. They would be mutations where genetic material is added to the organism. To claim otherwise is nothing more than making things up about science without any basis at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:55 pm
|
|
|
|
Spike Zantren Please show me some evidence of an alligator evolving into a bird.
Okay, I apologize for the nonclarity of what I said there. What I meant was that it could happen; I don't know that that is what evolution necessarily says has happened. The process would, however, be the same.
Quote: I said nothing about sign language, I said speak a complete language. So yes, I'm referring to brain development and cognitive/language skills.
Oh, my bad, I misread your post. I'm still not sure what that has to do with anything though. confused
I disagree. Let's leave it at that.
Quote: Adaptations are changes in an organism that do not include the adding of DNA or the changing from one kind of creature to another kind of creature, so please stop mixing terms.
At the risk of sounding like zz1000zz, I'm afraid you're the one operating under mixed up terms. Adaptations happen as a result of mutations that allow an organism to better live in its environment than the generation beforehand. Finches for example. During times of drought, the finches with shorter, stronger beaks for cracking nuts and seeds tend to flourish, because they are the ones getting the most food (they are the fittest finches). Those finches (same species) that are unlucky enough to have weaker, slightly longer beaks, do not survive, because their beaks are better suited for getting insects out of trees and logs- where there is drought, there are fewer insects, and fewer things for the longer beaked finches to eat. They die off sooner than their shorter beaked counterparts, and have less of a chance to reproduce more short-beaked finches. If this continues for a long period of time, you end up with only finches with long beaks- they have evolved. They have adapted to fit their surroundings, and have thus evolved.
Now, I'm not sure which definition you're going by, but dictionary.com tells me that evolution is change over time, development of an adaptive feature. Tell me which of my examples does not fit this definition of evolution, and I will concede that evolution does not exist. Until then, I would appreciate if you stopped mixing up your terms.
Quote: Since you guys love using Wikipedia, I'll use something from it as well: Wikipedia Adaptations are traits that have been selected by natural selection. The underlying genetic basis for the adaptive trait did not arise as a consequence of the environment; the genetic variant pre-existed and was subsequently selected because it provided the bearer of that variant some advantage. (Emphasis added)
And it was the environment that allowed that new trait to remain and get passed down. That is how one adapts to one's environment.
Quote: Perhaps losing fur is not the result of a loss of genetic material. However, even if it is not, it's still not a genetic advancement, so it's not evolution; it would still be an adaptation.
What do you mean by genetic advancement? If you mean advancing an organism to live better and longer than its predecessors, then it certainly is a genetic advancement. If you mean adding genetic material, then you're talking about something else entirely. All adaption requires is a random mutation- an extra finger, a stronger resistance to a virus, a kink in the coding for eye color- in order to happen.
Higher than average intelligence is an adaptation in human beings. It's what's allowing humans to not feel the effects of evolution so much. The smarter human beings- way back when- were the ones that survived. They were the ones with the problem solving skills that got them better shelter, more food, and healthier mates. When you get intelligence passed down like that, you eventually get to the doctors, the scientists, the physicists who sustain us and allow us to live in our world. Survival of the fittest. It is a cognitive evolution, an adaptation that has advanced us in many ways.
Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly Science just loves proving itself wrong. xd Makes you wonder why we trust it.
Because it's not afraid of being wrong. A community with that much confidence in spite of much more letdowns is something to be reckoned with.
Quote: I'm not calling someone who believes in evolution an idiot. I'm saying that the evidence used to support evolution is fraudulent.
I'm not saying you were. You're accusing the entire scientific community of looking at creationists as if they were somehow mentally deficient. I'm just trying to make the point that not all of the scientific community does.
Quote: Fushigi na Butterfly That's what science's problem is with people who don't believe in evolution. Not that they don't believe, but that they are totally ignorant of the evidence that supports it. Once again, please show me some real verifiable evidence.
I'm afraid I've only got anecdotal evidence for you. confused
Quote: I could give it a shot if you linked me to a site detailing the law.
There is no detail to the law. What I told you is exactly what it is. One of the most simple laws psychology has.
Quote: What did he start out with? Pea plants. What did he end with? Pea plants. Sorry, but that's adaptation, not evolution.
A tiger and a house cat evolved from a similar ancestor. They're both still cats. They are different. Just like the pea plants. Perhaps Mendel was a bad example to use, since he was mostly looking at inherited traits, though all evolution is, is inherited traits that showed up in some and not in others and allowed the some to reproduce more and better than the others. Also, if Mendel's experiments had gone on for much longer, it would be a better example of evolution rather than adaptation.
Quote: Mutations do not add genetic information, they merely mix up information that the gene code already has.You may see a five-legged bull, but the genetic information to create a leg already existed within the gene code.
What's your point?
Quote: ]Wow, maybe women will become extinct once the Y chromosome's so small that it's gone, then there will be no more babies, and no babies means the end of humans. That's pretty sad.
Actually, you need Y chromosomes to create males, not females. Without a Y chromosome, there would be no men, only women. Scientists think we're on the road to becoming just like whiptail lizards- a species of lizard in which there are only females.
Quote: I haven't seen you address this. Please tell me again.
Evolution means change over a long period of time- a series of adaptations. It does not mean getting bigger, taller, more of something, etc. We are evolving out of our wisdom teeth, and our pinkies, and possibly even our Y chromosomes. Just because something is disappearing out of a species doesn't mean it is going backwards. confused
Quote: You're right. I don't see how a 7-day literal creation with no death before sin can be compatible with a billions of years theory of evolution involving countless deaths in order for natural selection to guide the evolution process.
Good thing God didn't create the universe in 7 days. stare He created it in 6.
Quote: Funny, they look nothing alike to me.
Are we looking at the same pictures? Obviously you've never heard of an artistic rendition. Most textbook diagrams are not drawn exactly like what they're modeling. The drawings are created with slightly more detail than what the photographs show because you can hardly distinguish the details in the photographs. confused
Quote: And the point I'm trying to make is that the fake drawings shown above are being used in my Biology textbook as evidence for evolution and is insinuating that these pictures are accurate, when in fact they are not.
Wow. Just ... I don't think I can even dignify that with a response. That is the most ignorant reaction I've ever seen.
Quote: We're already given the genetic information to go through the process of going from a zygote to a baby through the DNA of the mother and father.
Well, right, which is why no one gives any heed to this theory.
Quote: Perhaps nobody buys into the theory because it's wrong. Just a guess.
Basically. But it was a theory based off of the available evidence. Which is why it's compelling.
Quote: I think it's incredibly important to the credibility of Jesus and His Word. 19:4-6 Matthew Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27, 5:2, and 2:24. He refers to the Genesis account as a literal event. Matthew 19:4-6 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
All this shows is that God created male and female human beings, because you need one of each in order to reproduce.
Quote: I think God's smart enough to get His creation right on the first try.
No one said that evolution was anything other than the "first try." But who's to say what Adam and Eve looked like?
Anyway, I can't keep debating this right now. My brain is a little fried and I'm kinda ... shocked too much to say anything else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
