What can evolutionary biologists and creationists agree upon?

[aharvey]

As an evolutionary biologist, I am always perplexed by the commonly made statement by creationists that there is "no evidence for evolution." In contrast, evolutionary biologists consider there to be substantial evidence for evolution; and it is difficult for me to come up with a scientific basis for this drastic discrepancy. Both groups live on the same planet, have access to the same organisms, data, and analytical tools; surely they can agree on something!

Thus, here I'd like to try to identify what the two groups can unequivocally agree on, and move away from that noncontroversial starting point to the point where creationists find that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory fails.

Let's conduct a series of tests that compare the DNA extracted from the leg tissue of a single specimen of the Rice Weevil Sitophilus oryzae (The choice of organism is irrelevant to the larger issue. I chose the Rice Weevil because I wrote this page in response to a recurring controversy on the Entomology list-serve, and happen to have several thousand of the weevils in my lab. One could make the same kind of table with any organism.). The table linked here (http://www.bio.georgiasouthern.edu/bio-home/harvey/evlwevl.html) qualitatively summarizes expected results of DNA comparisons of the rice weevil to the DNA of a series of organisms that systematically vary in their expected relationship with the rice weevil. In this table, the "relationships" column is irrelevant to the question at hand. It is provided merely to give a reader unfamiliar with these taxa a sense of how similar each sample is to the first within the context of current classifications. Likewise, the "scale" of the expected genetic similarity is strictly qualitative; i.e., it doesn't matter whether you consider the DNA of the click beetle to be "almost identical" or "extremely similar" to that of the rice weevil.

The expected results and evolutionary explanations are color-coded to match the common definition of evolution as descent with modification; each blue result reflects common descent, and each magenta result reflects modification.

If you consider yourself a creationist/intelligent design proponent, my questions are, as you work down the series of comparisons,
1. at what comparison do you first reject the evolutionary interpretation?
2. why at that particular comparison?
3. what is the preferred explanation?
4. why does that explanation apply to that comparison but not the previous ones?

I'd appreciate any thoughts on this topic.

[tseeker]

Perhaps you should start by defining what you mean when you use the word "evolution".

[Gerald]

Evolution: changes in alleles over time.

[aharvey]

I did: "The expected results and evolutionary explanations are color-coded to match the common definition of evolution as descent with modification; each blue result reflects common descent, and each magenta result reflects modification."

[Jukia]

aharvey: Good luck, most of the creationists here fall back on "God did it", "the Bible says so", "evolutionists are all God-less atheistists", "there is a conspiracy to keep creationist papers from the standard journals".
The preferred explanation you are likely to get is that all you have is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution and someone will no doubt raise the issue of how can mutations add information (that is the current hot button from what I can tell)
If you get any serious response I will be amazed, and interested.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Jukia
...atheistists"...

What are "atheistists?"

[Greywolf]

aharvey,

Good luck finding a creationist around here who actually understands how evolution works. I know that there is at least one, but other than that...

Welcome to TOL, BTW.

[cur_deus_homo]

Creationists (YECs, OECs), Evolutionists, Intelligent Design Theorists, yada, yada, yada...

Whether God created "me" 6000 years ago or "I" evolved from a tiny mole-like mammalian species who survived the extinction at the end of the Jurassic, it doesn't change the current circumstances of my life or anyone else's one bit, I would argue.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

I did: "The expected results and evolutionary explanations are color-coded to match the common definition of evolution as descent with modification; each blue result reflects common descent, and each magenta result reflects modification."
"each blue result reflects common descent"
WHY?

"each magenta result reflects modification"
You expect God didnt adjust the DNA for different "kinds"?

1. at what comparison do you first reject the evolutionary interpretation?
when you go from one "kind" of animal, to another

2. why at that particular comparison?

because MICRO evolution is NOT proof of MACRO evolution.
just because we have many types of dogs, does not prove a dog will ever be a NON-dog

3. what is the preferred explanation?

God created "kinds" with the ability to adapt

4. why does that explanation apply to that comparison but not the previous ones?

was i not consistent?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by brother Willi

because MICRO evolution is NOT proof of MACRO evolution
Big assumption.

Originally posted by brother Willi

just because we have many types of dogs, does not prove a dog will ever be a NON-dog

But evolutionary theory doesn't posit that dogs "become" non-dogs in some kind of binary fashion as you imply. Calling an animal a "dog" and something else a "non-dog" is a taxonomic decision and does not necessarily imply that both animals come from the same "branch" of the evolutionary bush or not.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Big assumption.

its a bigger assumption to believe it is proof




But evolutionary theory doesn't posit that dogs "become" non-dogs in some kind of binary fashion as you imply. Calling an animal a "dog" and something else a "non-dog" is a taxonomic decision and does not necessarily imply that both animals come from the same "branch" of the evolutionary bush or not.
I need you to explain then why evolution has a bush, tree, what ever you want to call it.
in other words, what do evolutionist believe became a dog?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by brother Willi

its a bigger assumption to believe it is proof

I didn't say it's proof, but it sure is very convincing evidence for so-called "macro evolution." Besides, claiming there's some kind of difference between micro and macro evolution is a red herring. Once one grasps the concept of evolution, even in a very basic way, one will realize that the micro/macro distinction is simply a rhetorical device used by anti-evolutionists who don't understand evolution.

Originally posted by brother Willi

I need you to explain then why evolution has a bush, tree, what ever you want to call it.

Most evolutionists, I think, will admit that "bush" is a better metaphor than "tree." However, it's just a metaphor.

Originally posted by brother Willi

in other words, what do evolutionist believe became a dog?

I implore you to get over the "naming" of the species otherwise you'll never comprehend what you're arguing against.

Try to imagine a "line" of animals throughout evolutionary history and call this "line" the "dog" line. At the end of the line in the present imagine any old particular dog you want to (even your own dog chained up in the backyard) and call that "DOG(n)." Now trace in your imagination the "sequence" of the line and the various ancestral animals of that particular "dog" back to something that doesn't look like a "dog" and that you would not call a "dog" today. Now call that animal "DOG(0)." So, what you have is this...

DOG(n)
DOG(n-1)
DOG(n-2)
DOG(n-3)
.
.
.
DOG(n-n) which is DOG(0)

So, you see, the name is totally arbitrary.

Now try the same thought experiment with any particular animal, even, dare I say it, a human, and call that animal LIFE(n). Now trace LIFE(n) back to the very origin of LIFE() to get LIFE(0).

You see? That's not so hard, was it?

Look, do I believe I "evolved" from some "non-human" species? Of course not! That would have been quite a gestation! I came from human parents and so did you and everyone else we know and everyone they knew in the past and so on...

[Aussie Thinker]

Cur-deus-homo,

From an atheist point of view it is always enlightening to meet a theist who makes eminent sense...

Always cuts back my arrogance about there being NO god...lol.. good response.

[bagels & lox]

That George Bush is an a-hole.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

I didn't say it's proof, but it sure is very convincing evidence for so-called "macro evolution."
not to me, but you are free to believe as you wish


Most evolutionists, I think, will admit that "bush" is a better metaphor than "tree." However, it's just a metaphor.


yep


I implore you to get over the "naming" of the species otherwise you'll never comprehend what you're arguing against.

nope, keep reading, you will understand my point


DOG(n)
DOG(n-1)
DOG(n-2)
DOG(n-3)
.
.
.
DOG(n-n) which is DOG(0)

So, you see, the name is totally arbitrary.

various ancestral animals?
are you saying a dog (D) has always been (D)?
a true evolutionist will trace (D) back to when it was not a (D)!
remember unless you are willing to call the first living cell (D) then cats (C) are also traced back to (D), as all life would be traced back to your (D)

a true evolutionist sees
(A)
(A1)
(A2)
(A3) becoming (B), (B1), (B2)
(A4)

now (C) can come from (A) group or (B) group
that is how evolution works according to the wacky theory




Look, do I believe I "evolved" from some "non-human" species? Of course not! That would have been quite a gestation! I came from human parents and so did you and everyone else we know and everyone they knew in the past and so on...
I'm most happy to hear that

[aharvey]

Maybe the intent of my original post was unclear. I already knew that creationists would disagree with evolutionary biologists by arguing that beetles and bacteria do not share a common ancestor, and I considered it a safe assumption that they would agree with evolutionary biologists that two beetles from the same clutch do share a common ancestor.

Therefore, there must be some point, in between these two extremes, where creationists no longer agree with the evolutionary view (that the degree of similarity between two organisms reflects the distance between their nearest common ancestor).

Put another way, as we gradually move away from comparing an individual to itself, the pattern stays the same, and the evolutionary interpretation stays the same. Why does the creationist interpretation suddenly change?

Originally posted by brother Willi

{at what point?} when you go from one "kind" of animal, to another

{why not at the previous comparison?} because MICRO evolution is NOT proof of MACRO evolution.
just because we have many types of dogs, does not prove a dog will ever be a NON-dog


"Microevolution" must therefore occur within "kinds" and "macroevolution" does not occur from one "kind" to another. So the creationist change in interpretation of a single pattern begins when you're comparing two different "kinds," and the reason for the change is that they are two different "kinds."

But what is a "kind"? I've seen creationist papers that define "kind" as everything from conspecifics to members of the same domain! (see Wood et. al, 2003. "A refined baramin concept." Occasional Papers of the BSG 3:1-14 for examples and references). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a biological basis for any of these definitions, so how do you choose among them? And without a nonarbitrary way of defining a "kind," and therefore "micro" and "macro" evolution, I don't see any rational way to determine where evolutionary models no longer apply.

Incidentally, claiming that an explanation must be wrong because it hasn't been "proven" right is pretty much the same as saying "I have no idea."

[tseeker]

Originally posted by aharvey

I did: "The expected results and evolutionary explanations are color-coded to match the common definition of evolution as descent with modification; each blue result reflects common descent, and each magenta result reflects modification."

If "descent with modification" is all that is meant by evolution then it is clear that all my children have evolved from me.

Gerald,
Since no descendent of mine has the same percentage of alleles as the human population then "change in alleles" is inevitable whenever a human being is born or dies.

-------

Obviously all creationists agree with "descent with modification" and "change in alleles". Any disagreement over "evolution" must be a figment of people's imagination.

[tseeker]

Originally posted by aharvey

Maybe the intent of my original post was unclear. I already knew that creationists would disagree with evolutionary biologists by arguing that beetles and bacteria do not share a common ancestor, and I considered it a safe assumption that they would agree with evolutionary biologists that two beetles from the same clutch do share a common ancestor.

Therefore, there must be some point, in between these two extremes, where creationists no longer agree with the evolutionary view (that the degree of similarity between two organisms reflects the distance between their nearest common ancestor).

Put another way, as we gradually move away from comparing an individual to itself, the pattern stays the same, and the evolutionary interpretation stays the same. Why does the creationist interpretation suddenly change?



"Microevolution" must therefore occur within "kinds" and "macroevolution" does not occur from one "kind" to another. So the creationist change in interpretation of a single pattern begins when you're comparing two different "kinds," and the reason for the change is that they are two different "kinds."

But what is a "kind"? I've seen creationist papers that define "kind" as everything from conspecifics to members of the same domain! (see Wood et. al, 2003. "A refined baramin concept." Occasional Papers of the BSG 3:1-14 for examples and references). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a biological basis for any of these definitions, so how do you choose among them? And without a nonarbitrary way of defining a "kind," and therefore "micro" and "macro" evolution, I don't see any rational way to determine where evolutionary models no longer apply.

"Kind" is apparently as difficult for creationists to determine as "species" is for evolutionists. Perhaps they are both like pornography, difficult to define but easy to "know when I see it".

Incidentally, claiming that an explanation must be wrong because it hasn't been "proven" right is pretty much the same as saying "I have no idea."

Creationists would harbor no disagreement if evolutionists were humble enough to admit that the general "theory of evolution" (goo to the zoo) has never been shown to be true.

Evolution is similar to the Big Bang in that both are extrapolations which if taken to their logical extreme yield nonsense.

Evolutionists know this, which is why they cop out by arguing that "evolution does not include abiogenesis", just as astrophysicists cop out at the singularity they have painted themselves into the corner with.

We all know that cells did not come into existence from some non-cell predecessor, just as we all know that the universe was not once the size of the dot at the end of this sentence.

Scientists who deny God's role in creating the universe and life were described in scripture as vain creatures who "professing to be wise became fools".

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

From an atheist point of view it is always enlightening to meet a theist who makes eminent sense...

Thanks, I try real hard to understand different worldviews and scientific theories. If I refuse to understand them then I render myself incapable of respecting the person who advocates such-and-such worldview or theory. That doesn't mean I have to agree with all the various worldviews out there, that would not make sense. But if I at least try to understand them then I increase my chances that people will respect me and my own worldview when I advocate it. Seems pretty sensible, doesn't it?

You know, I have always been scientifically inclined, and I had always believed evolution was a reasonable explanation of the history of life. But then when I started taking Christ and Christianity more seriously I bought into the whole "evolution is godless" thing and "the theory is falling apart," blah, blah, blah... This was mostly the result of peer pressure with the pseudo-scientific strains of Christian apologetics. But during that period I always read books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc. to keep abreast of what apologists for evolution were saying. And then I read a book called Tower of Babel by Robert Pennock. I don't say this about too many books, but that one changed my whole outlook on matters of intellect and faith, specifically on evolution and theism. Anyone interested in the so-called evolution/creation debate must read that book. Then I started reading Howad Van Til, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, Kenneth Miller, etc.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I realized such beliefs like "Jesus died for the forgiveness of my sins" and "Humans descended from species that we would call 'non-human'" are not mutually exclusive.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo
Thanks, I try real hard to understand different worldviews and scientific theories. If I refuse to understand them then I render myself incapable of respecting the person who advocates such-and-such worldview or theory. That doesn't mean I have to agree with all the various worldviews out there, that would not make sense. But if I at least try to understand them then I increase my chances that people will respect me and my own worldview when I advocate it. Seems pretty sensible, doesn't it?

You know, I have always been scientifically inclined, and I had always believed evolution was a reasonable explanation of the history of life. But then when I started taking Christ and Christianity more seriously I bought into the whole "evolution is godless" thing and "the theory is falling apart," blah, blah, blah... This was mostly the result of peer pressure with the pseudo-scientific strains of Christian apologetics. But during that period I always read books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc. to keep abreast of what apologists for evolution were saying. And then I read a book called Tower of Babel by Robert Pennock. I don't say this about too many books, but that one changed my whole outlook on matters of intellect and faith, specifically on evolution and theism. Anyone interested in the so-called evolution/creation debate must read that book. Then I started reading Howad Van Til, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, Kenneth Miller, etc.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I realized such beliefs like "Jesus died for the forgiveness of my sins" and "Humans descended from species that we would call 'non-human'" are not mutually exclusive.

:thumb:

[aharvey]

Originally posted by tseeker

Obviously all creationists agree with "descent with modification" and "change in alleles". Any disagreement over "evolution" must be a figment of people's imagination.

Well, that would be worth knowing, wouldn't it! Alas, it's obviously not the case:

Originally posted by tseeker

Evolution is similar to the Big Bang in that both are extrapolations which if taken to their logical extreme yield nonsense.

Evolutionists know this, which is why they cop out by arguing that "evolution does not include abiogenesis", just as astrophysicists cop out at the singularity they have painted themselves into the corner with.

I really am not having much luck with this topic! Yes, I know that creationists have problems with the "logical extreme" end of evolution (i.e., the origin of life rather than the diversification of life that we evolutionary biologists actually study). Since you've agreed that descent with modification DOES occur at some level, you can't be arguing that because evolutionists can't explain everything, they can't explain anything. So, once again, where does the problem begin?

Originally posted by tseeker

"Kind" is apparently as difficult for creationists to determine as "species" is for evolutionists. Perhaps they are both like pornography, difficult to define but easy to "know when I see it".

Hmm, I'd say creationists are having a more difficult time of it. Most definitions of "species" 1) have some sort of biological justification to them, and 2) will agree on "species" limits most of the time. Neither is true for creationist definitions of "kind."

[Jukia]

aharvey: the problem you are having with this is the inability of creationists to look beyond Genesis. You can suggest till you are blue in the face, that there is substanial evidence for evolution but you might as well be talking to the wall. All the evidence in the world will not come close to suggesting to some on this board that they ought to consider something other than special creation ala Genesis.

Science is God-less and full of conspiracies to keep the Truth from being known.

Good luck.

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Jukia

aharvey: the problem you are having with this is the inability of creationists to look beyond Genesis. You can suggest till you are blue in the face, that there is substanial evidence for evolution but you might as well be talking to the wall. All the evidence in the world will not come close to suggesting to some on this board that they ought to consider something other than special creation ala Genesis.

Which is why I'm purposefully avoiding that approach. There seems little point in wasting anyone's time going over, yet again, evidence for evolution. I'm merely presenting a sequence of simple, uncontroversial patterns and their evolutionary interpretation, and trying to find out at what point the evolutionary interpretation becomes controversial.

It does occur to me, though, that I may have overlooked tseeker's answer to this latter question. Did you (tseeker) mean to suggest that the evolutionary explanation for my sequence of comparisons first breaks down with the origin of life? I didn't think to include a comparison #31 (e.g., rice weevil vs. rock?) in my example.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by brother Willi

various ancestral animals?
are you saying a dog (D) has always been (D)?
a true evolutionist will trace (D) back to when it was not a (D)!
remember unless you are willing to call the first living cell (D) then cats (C) are also traced back to (D), as all life would be traced back to your (D)

a true evolutionist sees
(A)
(A1)
(A2)
(A3) becoming (B), (B1), (B2)
(A4)

now (C) can come from (A) group or (B) group
that is how evolution works according to the wacky theory


I had a feeling you wouldn't understand my examples of the arrays DOG() and LIFE(). That's OK. Let me try again:

Let DOG(n) = 3

Let the number 3 = "Chow Chow" (or even all "dogs")

Let x = 0.000001

Let 0.000001 = the "changes" of each generation of the population of "Chows" (or "dogs," if you like)

Now follow the ancesrty of the Chow Chow ("dogs"), and for each iteration of the array the value will correspondingly decrease by x.

DOG(n - 1) = 3 - 1x or 2.999999 (which is very, very close to 3; for almost all "practical" purposes 2.999999 can function as 3 can)

DOG(n - 2) = 3 - 2x or 2.999998 (still very close to 3)
.
.
.
DOG(n - 1,000,000) = 2


Now try real hard to forget that the name of the array is DOG() and concentrate on the FACT that DOG(n) = 3 and DOG(n - 1,000,000) = 2. If we are to maintain any sense of rationality and hope (and sanity, I suggest), we must admit that 2 does not equal 3.

So, when we use the word "dog" to refer to "Chows" and "Beagles," it is very close to the same idea I have outlined above. That is, the word "dog" would represent the numbers "around 3" and "Chow Chow" might be something like the value 3.000001 and "Beagle" something like the value 3.00001.

This explanation, I admit, is a gross oversimplification, but it nevertheless conveys the basic concept of evolution and demonstrates the fallacy that "at some point" "dogs" become "non-dogs." If someone wants to pin down "when" the change "happens" they completely misunderstand evolution and its power to create change through subtle differences in populations.

The fact is that the "change happens" every time a member of the "species" in question reproduces. It's that simple.

Don't get me wrong, brother Willi, I am not trying to make you believe in evolution. I am simply trying to demonstrate what evolution is really all about so those of us who are Christians and care deeply about arguing against the "truth" of evolution will understand the very thing they argue against and not some limp strawman theory in their imagination.

As you can tell, I accept the fact that the history of life transpired in a way that reflects the broad theory of biological evolution.

[tseeker]

Originally posted by aharvey

I really am not having much luck with this topic! Yes, I know that creationists have problems with the "logical extreme" end of evolution (i.e., the origin of life rather than the diversification of life that we evolutionary biologists actually study).

Creationists have no problem with "the diversification of life", since it is obviously necessary in order to generate all the varieties of animals we see today from the lesser number of animals preserved on the Ark.

Since you've agreed that descent with modification DOES occur at some level, you can't be arguing that because evolutionists can't explain everything, they can't explain anything. So, once again, where does the problem begin?

Since you have just admitted that evolutionists cannot explain everything, why do you insist that creationists have to explain everything?

Hmm, I'd say creationists are having a more difficult time of it. Most definitions of "species" 1) have some sort of biological justification to them, and 2) will agree on "species" limits most of the time. Neither is true for creationist definitions of "kind."

If you think that determining a species is, in many cases, not just a matter of opinion , then you know less about evolutionary theory than I thought.

Whether creationists have a good definition of "kind" or not has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the matter. Of course the same is true for definitions of species. The reason I bring this up is that the dispute really comes down to an "argument from authority". Evolutionists are really saying that they are better scientists than creationists are and therefore we should bow down to their superior knowledge.

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the superior authority of the one who created the universe and life, and He told us the straight scoop. Once one recognizes what the truth is then it is almost child's play to see the fallacies in "naturalistic" origin theories.

You should try bowing down to God instead of other men. Once you really do this in earnest you may then be able to see as a child, and recognize that evolution is nothing more than a modern revival of the age old lie which deceived all ancient cultures which turned their backs on God.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by tseeker
If you think that determining a species is, in many cases, not just a matter of opinion , then you know less about evolutionary theory than I thought.

Whether creationists have a good definition of "kind" or not has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the matter. Of course the same is true for definitions of species. The reason I bring this up is that the dispute really comes down to an "argument from authority". Evolutionists are really saying that they are better scientists than creationists are and therefore we should bow down to their superior knowledge.

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the superior authority of the one who created the universe and life, and He told us the straight scoop. Once one recognizes what the truth is then it is almost child's play to see the fallacies in "naturalistic" origin theories.

You should try bowing down to God instead of other men. Once you really do this in earnest you may then be able to see as a child, and recognize that evolution is nothing more than a modern revival of the age old lie which deceived all ancient cultures which turned their backs on God.

Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory based on fossil, biological, and biochemical evidence, that is all. Scientists looked at the evidence and saw that it supported the theory of evolution.

The problem is a matter of belief. Creationism requires a God in order for it to work. There is no evidence to establish that God exists, so scientists don't include that idea into their theories. Then some people go around yelling about how evolution is "godless". All science is "godless", because there is no proof that God exists.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

I had a feeling you wouldn't understand my examples of the arrays DOG() and LIFE(). That's OK. Let me try again:

Let DOG(n) = 3

Let the number 3 = "Chow Chow" (or even all "dogs")

Let x = 0.000001

Let 0.000001 = the "changes" of each generation of the population of "Chows" (or "dogs," if you like)

Now follow the ancesrty of the Chow Chow ("dogs"), and for each iteration of the array the value will correspondingly decrease by x.

DOG(n - 1) = 3 - 1x or 2.999999 (which is very, very close to 3; for almost all "practical" purposes 2.999999 can function as 3 can)

DOG(n - 2) = 3 - 2x or 2.999998 (still very close to 3)
.
.
.
DOG(n - 1,000,000) = 2


Now try real hard to forget that the name of the array is DOG() and concentrate on the FACT that DOG(n) = 3 and DOG(n - 1,000,000) = 2. If we are to maintain any sense of rationality and hope (and sanity, I suggest), we must admit that 2 does not equal 3.

So, when we use the word "dog" to refer to "Chows" and "Beagles," it is very close to the same idea I have outlined above. That is, the word "dog" would represent the numbers "around 3" and "Chow Chow" might be something like the value 3.000001 and "Beagle" something like the value 3.00001.

This explanation, I admit, is a gross oversimplification, but it nevertheless conveys the basic concept of evolution and demonstrates the fallacy that "at some point" "dogs" become "non-dogs." If someone wants to pin down "when" the change "happens" they completely misunderstand evolution and its power to create change through subtle differences in populations.

The fact is that the "change happens" every time a member of the "species" in question reproduces. It's that simple.

Don't get me wrong, brother Willi, I am not trying to make you believe in evolution. I am simply trying to demonstrate what evolution is really all about so those of us who are Christians and care deeply about arguing against the "truth" of evolution will understand the very thing they argue against and not some limp strawman theory in their imagination.

As you can tell, I accept the fact that the history of life transpired in a way that reflects the broad theory of biological evolution.
I understand just fine what evolutionist believe
and i think we are saying the same thing.
or do you disagree with this
(A)
(A1)
(A2)
(A3) becoming (B), (B1), (B2)
(A4)

now (C) can come from (A) group or (B) group
that is how evolution works according to the wacky theory

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by tseeker

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the superior authority of the one who created the universe and life, and He told us the straight scoop. Once one recognizes what the truth is then it is almost child's play to see the fallacies in "naturalistic" origin theories.
Do I understand you correctly to be referring to the Bible, namely Genesis 1 and 2?

If so, have you ever considered that Genesis 1 is really "God's way" of teaching or even "proving," if you like, to the ancient Israelites that He created the "heavens and the earth?" And, that this teaching of "God's" stands in contrast to the even more ancient creation story that taught the creation is a result of gods battling each other, gods like Tiamat and Marduk?
Originally posted by tseeker

You should try bowing down to God instead of other men. Once you really do this in earnest you may then be able to see as a child, and recognize that evolution is nothing more than a modern revival of the age old lie which deceived all ancient cultures which turned their backs on God.
If I read certain portions of the Enuma Elish to a child and then read Genesis 1 to the same child, I have little doubt that that child will see the similarities.

Beginning of Enuma Elish:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...
Ages increased,...
Then Ansar and Kisar were created, and over them....
Long were the days, then there came forth.....

Sound familiar?

Read Genesis 1:1-8

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory based on fossil, biological, and biochemical evidence, that is all. Scientists looked at the evidence and saw that it supported the theory of evolution.

The problem is a matter of belief. Creationism requires a God in order for it to work. There is no evidence to establish that God exists, so scientists don't include that idea into their theories. Then some people go around yelling about how evolution is "godless". All science is "godless", because there is no proof that God exists.
its all about conclusions Greywolf
evolutionist see no God, so they try to explain all life in a natural way.
creationist see a God.
we each have our own form of POOF

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
its all about conclusions Greywolf
evolutionist see no God, so they try to explain all life in a natural way.
creationist see a God.
we each have our own form of POOF

The problem is, that creationists want to base a scientific theory on a concept (God) that has no evidence to support it. Science doesn't work that way.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Do I understand you correctly to be referring to the Bible, namely Genesis 1 and 2?

If so, have you ever considered that Genesis 1 is really "God's way" of teaching or even "proving," if you like, to the ancient Israelites that He created the "heavens and the earth?" And, that this teaching of "God's" stands in contrast to the even more ancient creation story that taught the creation is a result of gods battling each other, gods like Tiamat and Marduk?

If I read certain portions of the Enuma Elish to a child and then read Genesis 1 to the same child, I have little doubt that that child will see the similarities.

Beginning of Enuma Elish:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,
Lahmu and Lahamu were called into being...
Ages increased,...
Then Ansar and Kisar were created, and over them....
Long were the days, then there came forth.....

Sound familiar?

Read Genesis 1:1-8
its all about record keeping.
we all come from 1 family

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Greywolf

The problem is, that creationists want to base a scientific theory on a concept (God) that has no evidence to support it. Science doesn't work that way.

evolution: based of evidence

faith: based on God

God: based on...?

Uh oh, do I hear the footsteps of the ontological argument approaching?

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

The problem is, that creationists want to base a scientific theory on a concept (God) that has no evidence to support it. Science doesn't work that way.
we all see the same evidence.
please dont say there is proof for the evolutionist form of POOF

the evidence can fit the evolutionists model, or the creationists modal.
we both use POOF

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo
evolution: based of evidence

faith: based on God

God: based on...?

Uh oh, do I hear the footsteps of the ontological argument approaching?

I see it more as

evolution: based on evidence

faith: based on nothing

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by brother Willi

its all about record keeping.
we all come from 1 family

Right. The human family, made in the image of God.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
we all see the same evidence.
please dont say there is proof for the evolutionist form of POOF

No proof, just evidence.

Originally posted by brother Willi
the evidence can fit the evolutionists model, or the creationists modal.
we both use POOF

There is evidence that life could have formed from its basic components. There is no evidence of the existance of a God.

[tseeker]

I am glad someone brought up the creation stories from cultures than rejected the true God and hence believed that even their gods were created "naturally".

Any successful shady salesperson always starts by saying some things that sound familiar as being truth, before then proposing something that isn't, in order to deceive the unwary.

The greatest shady salesman of all first deceived Eve and then Adam in turn.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Greywolf

faith: based on nothing

Sometimes.

Christian faith: based on God in Jesus

And Jesus ain't nothing!

Even according to Zakath Jesus is a "dead rabbi." And a dead rabbi still ain't "nothing."

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

I see it more as

evolution: based on evidence

faith: based on nothing
I see it more as

evolution: based on a naturally occurring POOF (no evidence)

creation: based on a God created POOF (no evidence)

but with no real solid evidence, whos POOF is better.
the Bible says creation

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo
Christian faith: based on God in Jesus

And Jesus ain't nothing!

Even according to Zakath Jesus is a "dead rabbi." And a dead rabbi still ain't "nothing."

Christian faith: based on the belief that Jesus was the son of God.

[tseeker]

BTW, when I first looked at abiogenesis theories some 20 years ago there was some slim possibility that cells might have come about "naturally".

Since that time there have been so many discoveries regarding the amzing operations going on inside cells that the chance of this coming about "naturally" now ranges somewhere from zero to nothing.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Christian faith: based on the belief that Jesus was the son of God.

Amen! :thumb:

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

No proof, just evidence.



There is evidence that life could have formed from its basic components. There is no evidence of the existance of a God.
just as there is evidence that a bunch of words blown by the wind can create a book
or a explosion can create a building
but you dont believe in that happening.
why is that?

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by tseeker

BTW, when I first looked at abiogenesis theories some 20 years ago there was some slim possibility that cells might have come about "naturally".

Since that time there have been so many discoveries regarding the amzing operations going on inside cells that the chance of this coming about "naturally" now ranges somewhere from zero to nothing.
agreed:thumb:
i see they are now trying to reduce the cell down to the most important parts to see if it can live and reproduce.
no luck so far

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by tseeker
BTW, when I first looked at abiogenesis theories some 20 years ago there was some slim possibility that cells might have come about "naturally".

Since that time there have been so many discoveries regarding the amzing operations going on inside cells that the chance of this coming about "naturally" now ranges somewhere from zero to nothing.

Do you think that abiogenesis theories says that fully formed, eukaryotic cells just appeared?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Do you think that abiogenesis theories says that fully formed, eukaryotic cells just appeared?

Of course they do.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Do you think that abiogenesis theories says that fully formed, eukaryotic cells just appeared?
nope, they try to point to RNA i think, then POOFING happened to get to a cell.
no evidence for any POOFING

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by tseeker

I am glad someone brought up the creation stories from cultures than rejected the true God and hence believed that even their gods were created "naturally".

Any successful shady salesperson always starts by saying some things that sound familiar as being truth, before then proposing something that isn't, in order to deceive the unwary.

The greatest shady salesman of all first deceived Eve and then Adam in turn.
Are you implying that the Enuma Elish was somehow inspired by the Adversary to deceive people from the truth of Genesis 1?

[aharvey]

Originally posted by tseeker
Since you have just admitted that evolutionists cannot explain everything, why do you insist that creationists have to explain everything?

I do so want to stay on message, but I ... can't ... resist...

1) Check the post you quoted above. I certainly didn't say evolutionists can't explain everything.
2) Now, however, I WILL say it: evolutionists can't explain everything. Who can? Any theory that purports to explain everything probably explains nothing usefully.
3) (Okay, back on message). You can't seriously think that from my original query, I'm expecting creationists to explain everything! I'll be happy to get some relevant information for my one thing! (i.e, at what point do creationists think evolutionary models fail at explaining decreasing genetic similarity?)

Originally posted by tseeker
If you think that determining a species is, in many cases, not just a matter of opinion , then you know less about evolutionary theory than I thought.

Although I'm not strictly a taxonomist by trade, I have described over a dozen new species of crustaceans, and just finished teaching a Systematic Biology course in which we spent several weeks of in-depth coverage of the various species concepts. So I actually do have some firsthand and nontrivial experience with these issues. And in any case, I did not say that species limits are not just a matter of opinion (although I don't think it's true that species determinations are "just a matter of opinion," that's off-topic). Let me reword what I actually said: The range of "species" concepts 1) have more biological justification to them, and 2) are more likely to agree with each other on taxon limits, compared to the range of creationist definitions of "kind." That is, any problems species definitions have pale in comparison to those of "kind" definitions.

Originally posted by tseeker
Whether creationists have a good definition of "kind" or not has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the matter.

Maybe. It depends on whether your inability to narrow the zone of controversy beyond "somewhere between siblings and origin of life" (= dependent variable) is a result of the arbitrariness of the "created kind" (= independent variable). That was just a hypothesis based on an earlier post. I'm open to other explanations.

[cur_deus_homo]

POOF! There go all of my yellow stars! God changed them into one purple star. (post 101)

Oh, wait. It's just an occurrence of base ten enumeration.

[brother Willi]

aharvey , the theory falls on its face when every step needs a POOF to happen.

adaptation we all agree on

adaptation does not explain many things

what the evolutionist sees as a step in evolution is explained with POOF

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

POOF! There go all of my yellow stars! God changed them into one purple star. (post 101)

Oh, wait. It's just an occurrence of base ten enumeration.
congratulations:thumb:

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
just as there is evidence that a bunch of words blown by the wind can create a book
or a explosion can create a building
but you dont believe in that happening.
why is that?

Scientists have observed the formation of organic compounds, the linking of monomers to form polymers (protein formation), and the formation of selectively permeable membranes. The poof, in the case of abiogenesis, was the laws of chemistry.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
nope, they try to point to RNA i think, then POOFING happened to get to a cell.
no evidence for any POOFING

They have also observed the formation of selectively permeable membranes and proteins.

The "poofing" was the laws of chemistry at work.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
aharvey , the theory falls on its face when every step needs a POOF to happen.

adaptation we all agree on

adaptation does not explain many things

what the evolutionist sees as a step in evolution is explained with POOF

Which evolutionary steps do you see as being a POOF?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by aharvey

at what point do creationists think evolutionary models fail at explaining decreasing genetic similarity

At the point when God went POOF!

Someone mentioned this, I think, in like the fourth post of this thread.

Michael Behe and others of his ilk are working feverishly in their god-of-the-gaps zoo trying to reproduce the near-extinct species of scientific creationism to a sizeable population for insertion into the marketplace environment of ideas. I am afraid that what they are really doing is genetically engineering a chimera species of biology and theology, and this chimera species will, no doubt, attract the interest of many lay people in the same way Frankenstein attracted the interest of the crowds.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
I see it more as

evolution: based on a naturally occurring POOF (no evidence)

creation: based on a God created POOF (no evidence)

but with no real solid evidence, whos POOF is better.
the Bible says creation

There is evidence supporting evolution though, that's the difference.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

The "poofing" was the laws of chemistry at work.
binding energies
Gods handywork:D

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
binding energies
Gods handywork:D

Just like the strong and weak nuclear forces. :D

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

There is evidence supporting evolution though, that's the difference.
you can say that all you want, it still dont make it true

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
you can say that all you want, it still dont make it true

What would you consider to be evidence (not proof, but evidence) of evolution?

[aharvey]

Originally posted by brother Willi

I see it more as

evolution: based on a naturally occurring POOF (no evidence)

creation: based on a God created POOF (no evidence)

but with no real solid evidence, whos POOF is better.
the Bible says creation

See, this attitude is what got me started on this whole line of thought. When you say there is "no evidence for evolution," you must be talking about some other version of evolution than the one studied by evolutionary biologists. Are you referring to any form of descent with modification? Are you talking about abiogenesis? These and everything in between? Some subset of this above? If so, which subset? If I'm not mistaken, none of the YEC stories I've read lately invoke evolution (indeed, they're presented as stark counterpoints), but all require the actual process of evolution, at far more spectacular rates than any evolutionary biologist would propose. No matter how you slice it, you need a lot of evolutionary change to move from 8000 species on the Ark to our estimated current 5 million species in just 4400 years.

So I'm still perplexed when I hear there is "no evidence for evolution," and I'm still convinced that we can refine and focus the discussion by identifying the real discrepancy, but I'm still waiting for someone on "the other side" to be willing to help find it.

[aharvey]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

At the point when God went POOF!

Someone mentioned this, I think, in like the fourth post of this thread.



Yeah, got that. Call me naive, but I'm hoping to convince someone that that's not really an answer.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by aharvey

Yeah, got that. Call me naive, but I'm hoping to convince someone that that's not really an answer.

Sorry. If only we had "met" about seven years ago I could have been such a person for you. :)

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by aharvey

So I'm still perplexed when I hear there is "no evidence for evolution," and I'm still convinced that we can refine and focus the discussion by identifying the real discrepancy, but I'm still waiting for someone on "the other side" to be willing to help find it.

The "real" discrepancy is the one between one imagination and the other. Here's another metaphor...

Creation-ISM: Digitally reproducing a Britney Spears CD will always give you another Britney Spears CD.

Evolution: The enironmental pressure of the music industry on the reproduction of Britney Spears's music works its way into a phenomenon known as "American Idol" (punctuated equilibrium), which in turn leads to the emergence of other pop stars like Clay Aiken, who are definitenly not Britney Spears, but the relation is still evident nonetheless.

Can I "prove" that the reproduction of Britney led to Clay? No. But the evidence is there and is overwhelming.

[tseeker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aharvey

See, this attitude is what got me started on this whole line of thought. When you say there is "no evidence for evolution," you must be talking about some other version of evolution than the one studied by evolutionary biologists. Are you referring to any form of descent with modification? Are you talking about abiogenesis? These and everything in between? Some subset of this above? If so, which subset? If I'm not mistaken, none of the YEC stories I've read lately invoke evolution (indeed, they're presented as stark counterpoints), but all require the actual process of evolution, at far more spectacular rates than any evolutionary biologist would propose. No matter how you slice it, you need a lot of evolutionary change to move from 8000 species on the Ark to our estimated current 5 million species in just 4400 years.[quote]


There might have been as many as 8000 animal types on the Ark, who knows?

But surely an evolutionarily informed person like yourself must know that there are only about 20,000 animal species extant today?

[brother Willi]

link provided by Statnerd

http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/index.html

from that link i found

http://www.bryancore.org/hdb/index.html

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by tseeker
But surely an evolutionarily informed person like yourself must know that there are only about 20,000 animal species extant today?

Actually there are a lot more.

So far scientists have named and classified more than 1 1/2 million animals.
Furthermore, there are currently about 1.5 to 1.8 million named species, but it is estimated that the actual number of species in the world ranges from 5 to 10 million (May et al. 1995).

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/FelixNisimov.shtml

[PureX]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo Creation-ISM: Digitally reproducing a Britney Spears CD will always give you another Britney Spears CD.

Evolution: The enironmental pressure of the music industry on the reproduction of Britney Spears's music works its way into a phenomenon known as "American Idol" (punctuated equilibrium), which in turn leads to the emergence of other pop stars like Clay Aiken, who are definitenly not Britney Spears, but the relation is still evident nonetheless.

Can I "prove" that the reproduction of Britney led to Clay? No. But the evidence is there and is overwhelming. Nice analogy! But I suspect it flew right over the heads of ....

[tseeker]

Originally posted by Greywolf
Actually there are a lot more.
url]http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/FelixNisimov.shtml[/url]

The species you reference are not relevant to the discussion. The animals which were saved on the Ark were the air-breathers.

[tseeker]

Greywolf must be an atheist because he is either purposely deceitful or else just plain stupid.

He "forgot" to include the rest of the quotation from his source:

So far scientists have named and classified more than 1 1/2 million animals. Over half of these are types of insects

Most of the others are not related to the air-breathers preserved on the Ark either.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by tseeker
Greywolf must be an atheist because he is either purposely deceitful or else just plain stupid.

Agnostic.

Originally posted by tseeker
He "forgot" to include the rest of the quotation from his source:


So far scientists have named and classified more than 1 1/2 million animals. Over half of these are types of insects

Most of the others are not related to the air-breathers preserved on the Ark either.

Ah, I see. Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=482585#post482585) I was just providing irrelevant information. But 11 minutes later, I'm either stupid or purposely being deceitful. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

[tseeker]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Ah, I see. Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=482585#post482585) I was just providing irrelevant information. But 11 minutes later, I'm either stupid or purposely being deceitful. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

The subject was the air-breathing animals on the Ark and their current descendents.

These current descendents are arrayed in 20,000 current species.

You either deceptively or stupidly point people to a site which gives an estimate of all animal species, including insects among others.

So which is it: are you stupid or deceptive?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by tseeker
The subject was the air-breathing animals on the Ark and their current descendents.

These current descendents are arrayed in 20,000 current species.

You either deceptively or stupidly point people to a site which gives an estimate of all animal species, including insects among others.

So which is it: are you stupid or deceptive?

I was merely providing information. I accidentally provided information that was not relevant to the topic being discussed.

[Sealeaf]

Pardon me for coming in late, but why argue whether the number of current species is three times the number that could have been on the arc or a hundred times more? If there is one more specie than whatever number is picked as an "arc-full" then evolution is proved. All it needs is one proven case for the theory to be proved. Or at least for the creationist case to be disproved. So just how many land dewelling, air breathing, species were on the arc? Let's settle this thing! At last here is a creationist claim that can be tested.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Sealeaf
Pardon me for coming in late, but why argue whether the number of current species is three times the number that could have been on the arc or a hundred times more? If there is one more specie than whatever number is picked as an "arc-full" then evolution is proved. All it needs is one proven case for the theory to be proved. Or at least for the creationist case to be disproved. So just how many land dewelling, air breathing, species were on the arc? Let's settle this thing! At last here is a creationist claim that can be tested.

:think: Excellent point.

[avatar382]

So I'm still perplexed when I hear there is "no evidence for evolution," and I'm still convinced that we can refine and focus the discussion by identifying the real discrepancy, but I'm still waiting for someone on "the other side" to be willing to help find it.

This is beginning of realizing an important point -

The fundamentalist does not hold YE Creationism to be true because he's analyzed all the options and found it to be the best one, he holds it to be true because he is forced to. I know this because I was once a fundamentalist and did it myself.

How is that so? Well, everything the fundamentalist believes to be true - their entire worldview - is utterly dependent on the literal truth of the Bible from Genesis to Apocalypse. If anything in the Bible is shown to be false - the entire house crumbles. When that house includes the beliefs and hopes you hold dear, the thought of it crumbling is a very scary propsition.

A scientist examining two different theories gives each one equal weight until the evidence favors one over the other. The fundamentalist pre-supposes the one he believes must be true, while intentionally looking to disprove the competitor. Hence, you have the origin of "Creation Science", men desperately seeking to maintain their faith in a time of science and knowledge, doing all they can to rationalize their beliefs to themselves.

I personally left the faith not because I found the views of evolution convincing at the time - but rather because my questioning of what was a relatively insignificant detail lead to conflict with my family/church friends, which lead to deeper questioning, afterwhich I uncovered a condradiction in my faith which split everything wide open. Mind you - I did not let go of my faith easily. I desperately wanted to keep it and I fought for every inch tooth and nail! However the end result was inevitable and it all came out for the better - I am happier now than I ever was before.

The point of all this? IMHO is it almost always pointless to argue with a Creationist. Creationism is merely one of many symptoms of a much larger "disease".

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by PureX

Nice analogy! But I suspect it flew right over the heads of ....
NOPE, I just dont agree with it

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Sealeaf

Pardon me for coming in late, but why argue whether the number of current species is three times the number that could have been on the arc or a hundred times more? If there is one more specie than whatever number is picked as an "arc-full" then evolution is proved. All it needs is one proven case for the theory to be proved. Or at least for the creationist case to be disproved. So just how many land dewelling, air breathing, species were on the arc? Let's settle this thing! At last here is a creationist claim that can be tested.
do creationist argue that variety within a Genus is not possible?? NO!!!

the arguement is that dogs being able to produce a variety of dogs, does not prove they will ever produce a NON-DOG

and you can sugar coat the truth any way you like.
that is exactly what evolution teaches

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by avatar382
The fundamentalist does not hold YE Creationism to be true because he's analyzed all the options and found it to be the best one,

What makes you think that?

he holds it to be true because he is forced to. I know this because I was once a fundamentalist and did it myself.

Did what -- force yourself to believe in young Earth creationism? You could have just come to a rational conclusion by analyzing the evidence. That's what many of us have done.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by avatar382

This is beginning of realizing an important point -

The fundamentalist does not hold YE Creationism to be true because he's analyzed all the options and found it to be the best one, he holds it to be true because he is forced to. I know this because I was once a fundamentalist and did it myself.

How is that so? Well, everything the fundamentalist believes to be true - their entire worldview - is utterly dependent on the literal truth of the Bible from Genesis to Apocalypse. If anything in the Bible is shown to be false - the entire house crumbles. When that house includes the beliefs and hopes you hold dear, the thought of it crumbling is a very scary propsition.

A scientist examining two different theories gives each one equal weight until the evidence favors one over the other. The fundamentalist pre-supposes the one he believes must be true, while intentionally looking to disprove the competitor. Hence, you have the origin of "Creation Science", men desperately seeking to maintain their faith in a time of science and knowledge, doing all they can to rationalize their beliefs to themselves.

I personally left the faith not because I found the views of evolution convincing at the time - but rather because my questioning of what was a relatively insignificant detail lead to conflict with my family/church friends, which lead to deeper questioning, afterwhich I uncovered a condradiction in my faith which split everything wide open. Mind you - I did not let go of my faith easily. I desperately wanted to keep it and I fought for every inch tooth and nail! However the end result was inevitable and it all came out for the better - I am happier now than I ever was before.

The point of all this? IMHO is it almost always pointless to argue with a Creationist. Creationism is merely one of many symptoms of a much larger "disease".

avatar, the one and only duty evolutionists have is to prove how everything happened naturally.
do not think evolution is not biased, it is!!!

an evolutionist will make the evidence fit a preconceived idea.
there is no difference between a creation scientist, and an evolution scientist, exept the preconceived idea on how things started

and the evidence fits creation VERY WELL

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by avatar382

I know this because I was once a fundamentalist and did it myself.
...
Mind you - I did not let go of my faith easily. I desperately wanted to keep it and I fought for every inch tooth and nail!

I mean this with the best of intentions, but it sounds like your faith was built on sand instead of on the solid rock of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the Living Christ. It's too bad your church and background apparently did not prepare you for even the rather puny assualts on Christian faith made by people with a naturalistic axe to grind.

Testimonies like yours are the most disturbing indictments of present-day Christianity in the so-called "developed" world. It's no wonder that where Christianity is really growing strong is in countries where people know suffering and thus the need for kindness and faith; these are the roots of Christianity.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by brother Willi
...there is no difference between a creation scientist, and an evolution scientist, exept the preconceived idea on how things startedActually the greatest difference is that creationists are that way because of religious belief, not scientific investigation. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are not that way due to their religious beliefs.

If creationism were based on coherent science, then atheist scientists would be converting, willy nilly. Look around you... do you see that happening? :think:

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by brother Willi

the arguement is that dogs being able to produce a variety of dogs, does not prove they will ever produce a NON-DOG

Still hung up on the "name thang," I see.

Go back to my example of the array DOG() and pick any element of the array from 0 to n (or 1,000,000), say, 321,608. Now call DOG(321,608) a "dog" and DOG(321,607) a "non-dog." Does that satisfy you? No, of course it won't, because you'll look at one particular animal in the population of DOG(321,608) and call it a "dog" because it looks like a "dog," yet DOG(321,607) also looks like a "dog." Nevertheless, this example demonstrates the ridiculous nature of thinking that "at some point" a non-dog becomes a dog.

DOG(0) DOES NOT "become" DOG(1,000,000)! Yes, DOG(0) "becomes" DOG(1), but what you seem to misunderstand is that DOG(0) is a population of animals that reproduces to create the population of DOG(1). Evolution is about genetic "drift" in populations, not the digitally perfect reproduction of parents.

If you admit there can be evolutionary change within a "genus," which you did admit to, then you are already a full-blown evolutionist because the word genus means a "taxonomic group containing one or more species."

As I said early on in this discussion, please try and get over words like "species," "genus," "phyla," and the like. These are taxonomic words that are employed by zoologists and biologists to categorize, nothing more, nothing less. These words have no bearing on the fixity or reality of some kind of aristotelian animal types.

[Jukia]

All of you well-meaning evolutionists are pounding your heads against a wall. You all have to overcome willi's statement "the evidence fits creation VERY WELL". Don't bother trying to explain science to willi or try to show him that he is wrong (and he is wrong), unless you can show a dog actually changing into a non-dog in a particular experiment don't waste your breath or your posts. That is what he wants, that is about the only thing that will convince him. It is not going to happen so don't bother. Just keep an eye out for him or someone like him on your local school board and an attempt to add Intelligent Design to the school curriculum.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Jukia

Don't bother trying to explain science to willi

But from a Christian point of view I am afraid that people like willi (see avatar's post) will be forced to flee the building they've constructed on poor foundations when it starts to fall in on them and then they'll wind up "homeless" or they'll find another home where Christ is not the foundation.

[Aussie Thinker]

Avatar,

The point of all this? IMHO is it almost always pointless to argue with a Creationist. Creationism is merely one of many symptoms of a much larger "disease".

Yet YOU managed to overcome the fundamentalists disease… that is why we continue to hope that others can too.

Cur-deus-homo,

Geez I like your way of thinking.

If all Christians/Deists thought like you I would shut up and go away.. lol

You made the point just before I did.. the Fundies pose MORE of a threat to Christianity and its real message than any atheist like me.

When Guys like Willi (although he is prob to old to change) and OEJ realise evolution is true their entire faith will collapse as it is based on the flimsy “bedrock” of the literal truth of the Bible (or their interpretation of).

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jukia

All of you well-meaning evolutionists are pounding your heads against a wall. You all have to overcome willi's statement "the evidence fits creation VERY WELL". The statement is a bit vague. Perhaps if he could describe what he means by "fits very well" we could provide some insight. :think:

[tseeker]

tseeker asked: "So which is it: are you stupid or deceptive?"

To which Greywolf relied:

"I was merely providing information. I accidentally provided information that was not relevant to the topic being discussed."

I take that as an admission of stupidity.

[Aussie Thinker]

Tseeker,

The answer which Grey Wolf alluded to was “neither”.. but perhaps we should inform him that you need VERY simple explanations in future.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Zakath

Actually the greatest difference is that creationists are that way because of religious belief, not scientific investigation. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are not that way due to their religious beliefs.
Not at all, The more I study, the more I see how much FAITH it takes to believe in evolution as the reason I am here today.
Evolution is explained by POOF it happened.
the difference is, evolutionist expect to one day discover these POOFS happened naturally



If creationism were based on coherent science, then atheist scientists would be converting, willy nilly. Look around you... do you see that happening? :think:

explain to my why every scientist is not an atheist

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

But from a Christian point of view I am afraid that people like willi (see avatar's post) will be forced to flee the building they've constructed on poor foundations when it starts to fall in on them and then they'll wind up "homeless" or they'll find another home where Christ is not the foundation.
dont be afraid for me.
my foundation is on solid rock

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Still hung up on the "name thang," I see.

Go back to my example of the array DOG() and pick any element of the array from 0 to n (or 1,000,000), say, 321,608. Now call DOG(321,608) a "dog" and DOG(321,607) a "non-dog." Does that satisfy you? No, of course it won't, because you'll look at one particular animal in the population of DOG(321,608) and call it a "dog" because it looks like a "dog," yet DOG(321,607) also looks like a "dog." Nevertheless, this example demonstrates the ridiculous nature of thinking that "at some point" a non-dog becomes a dog.
I dont think you understand.
I will use numbers since you like them.

CANIDAE= let say 5.0000 to 5.9999
now tell me what was 1.0000?
if you say a CANIDAE, then why not Felidae?

What was the first living cell?
will you say CANIDAE?

do you understand my point?



DOG(0) DOES NOT "become" DOG(1,000,000)! Yes, DOG(0) "becomes" DOG(1), but what you seem to misunderstand is that DOG(0) is a population of animals that reproduces to create the population of DOG(1). Evolution is about genetic "drift" in populations, not the digitally perfect reproduction of parents.

and strangely here you do understand my point


If you admit there can be evolutionary change within a "genus," which you did admit to, then you are already a full-blown evolutionist because the word genus means a "taxonomic group containing one or more species."


did you click on the link i posted in this thread?

As I said early on in this discussion, please try and get over words like "species," "genus," "phyla," and the like. These are taxonomic words that are employed by zoologists and biologists to categorize, nothing more, nothing less. These words have no bearing on the fixity or reality of some kind of aristotelian animal types.
Yep, thats what taxonomy is all about .
Fitting organisms into a scheme, from I think kingdom to species.
but as new things are learned, these schemes change dont they.
:think: maybe its all guess work.
and it is the job of evolutionists to try and prove "this" became "this":think:

to much evolutionary POOFING, no proof!!!

[Aussie Thinker]

BW,

Not at all, The more I study, the more I see how much FAITH it takes to believe in evolution as the reason I am here today.

Which clearly shows you are NOT studying and just accepting incorrect assumptions form people with obvious agendas.

Evolution is explained by POOF it happened.

Um… are you really on the right track here.. sure .. Poof .. a few hundred million years and billions of small changes.. etc …

POOF would refer to something INSTANT.. sorta like.. “God did it”

the difference is, evolutionist expect to one day discover these POOFS happened naturally

Let me ask you something BW.. please name for me ONE thing that has been shown scientifically to happen supernaturally. If you can I will shut up…

As it stands EVERTHING EVER known has been known to have a natural occurrence.. doesn’t it make sense for a normal human with normal human logic to assume all thing unknown will ALSO have a natural origin ?

explain to my why every scientist is not an atheist

That is because most religious belief do NOT revolve around your strange ridiculous literal fundamentalist creationist ideas ! But then I guess you could add well that still leaves a (very) few scientists who do hold these ideas anyway…

They are ALL unqualified or have allowed faith to override their normal sense.. or just plain stupid !

dont be afraid for me.
my foundation is on solid rock

The ROCK is ignorance of reality.. at your age you are probably safe.. but 20 years from now creationists will be considered as ridiculous as Flat Earthers. (they mostly are now)

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Which clearly shows you are NOT studying and just accepting incorrect assumptions form people with obvious agendas.

i study what you have to say.
so, what was your point?



Um… are you really on the right track here.. sure .. Poof .. a few hundred million years and billions of small changes.. etc …

POOF would refer to something INSTANT.. sorta like.. “God did it”

Poof .. a few hundred million years , is a POOF
and billions of small changes, POOF


Let me ask you something BW.. please name for me ONE thing that has been shown scientifically to happen supernaturally. If you can I will shut up…

look in the mirror, look at everything around you.

has science proven it POOFED naturally? NO



As it stands EVERTHING EVER known has been known to have a natural occurrence.. doesn’t it make sense for a normal human with normal human logic to assume all thing unknown will ALSO have a natural origin ?

and you say this why?
because you MUST believe it happened naturally, not because it is proven.
what other option does an atheist have?

[Aussie Thinker]

BW,

I ask for one supernatural thing and I get

look in the mirror, look at everything around you. has science proven it POOFED naturally? NO

I see a creature that grew from the combination of egg and sperm from a male and female of the same species. COMPLETELY NATURAL.

Science has PROVED this is a completely natural formation

and you say this why?
because you MUST believe it happened naturally, not because it is proven.
what other option does an atheist have?

You can’t or don’t want to listen to what I am saying.. you think it must be some religion on my behalf…

Just digest this simple fact…

Everything so far KNOWN has had a natural origin.. Do you get that .. it is INDISPUTABLE FACT !

There are a lot of things that are UNKNOWN.. do you get that ?

If everything ever known has a natural origin.. why would you assume that any of the unknown things would SUDDENLY have a supernatural origin ???

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ???

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

I see a creature that grew from the combination of egg and sperm from a male and female of the same species. COMPLETELY NATURAL.

Science has PROVED this is a completely natural formation

no, what you as an atheist sees is non living matter going POOF, and starting to become RNA.
but you dont know how.
then POOF it became sexual from asexual, but you dont know how.
then millions of POOFS, and now you see yourself



You can’t or don’t want to listen to what I am saying.. you think it must be some religion on my behalf…

Just digest this simple fact…

Everything so far KNOWN has had a natural origin.. Do you get that .. it is INDISPUTABLE FACT !

There are a lot of things that are UNKNOWN.. do you get that ?

If everything ever known has a natural origin.. why would you assume that any of the unknown things would SUDDENLY have a supernatural origin ???

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS ???
it is only an "INDISPUTABLE FACT" because you MUST believe so, you as an atheist have no other option.
when will you understand this fact?

[aharvey]

Wow, go away for a weekend and look what happens!

Originally posted by brother Willi

avatar, the one and only duty evolutionists have is to prove how everything happened naturally.


All we have to do is prove (something otherwise only possible for mathematical theorems) that everything happened naturally?! Although it seems implicit in creationist literature, I never thought I'd hear a creationist explicitly admit this. Suffice it to say that in no other avenue of scientific inquiry is a theory required to prove anything, much less everything.

And then there's...

Originally posted by tseeker

But surely an evolutionarily informed person like yourself must know that there are only about 20,000 animal species extant today?

...(and then, in a reply to Greywolf)...
The species you reference are not relevant to the discussion. The animals which were saved on the Ark were the air-breathers.

I can say with some confidence that all terrestrial animals (which does include the million or so known species of insects and other terrestrial invertebrates) are air-breathers. Perhaps you mean to suggest that Noah only worried about terrestrial vertebrates (i.e., reptiles, birds, and mammals; not sure where you would stand on amphibians). I must confess, this is the first time I've heard that invertebrates were not saved on the Ark, which does then raise the question of where they came from. But in any case, Sealeaf hit the nail on the head by observing that evolution must have occurred whether the number of current species is two or two hundred times as large as the number saved on the Ark.

And, last but not least, in a reply to Sealeaf:

Originally posted by brother Willi

do creationist argue that variety within a Genus is not possible?? NO!!!


In fact, they do argue about this (see references in the Wood et al. paper I cited earlier), but I'm pleased that you don't have a problem with this. I assume, however, that you realize that one ancestral species producing more than one (sometimes hundreds!) of descendant species, each one inheriting much from their ancestors (i.e., descent from a common ancestor...) but each with its own distinct differences (...with modification), is called evolution!

So, yes, it's back to my original question: if you don't have a problem with evolution within a genus, then where does the problem begin?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by brother Willi

Not at all, The more I study, the more I see how much FAITH it takes to believe in evolution as the reason I am here today.Perhaps faith is the word, but it need not be religious faith. People of all faiths, even atheists can believe in evolution.

Evolution is explained by POOF it happened.That type of simplistic viewpoint (and expression) is typical of religion, not science. All you've done is substitute "POOF" for the standard creationist "goddidit". ;)

as simplistic a view as claiming that the difference is, evolutionist expect to one day discover these POOFS happened naturallyThus far, all the POOFS (i.e. gaps) have been explained by natural events. I think that as we understand more about the universe that the remaining gaps will eventually be found to be explainable naturally, as well.

explain to my why every scientist is not an atheist Because some people derive siginificant comfort from their religious beliefs. They merely re-define deity to allow for compatibility with the most recent scientific findings...

[brother Willi]

aharvey, please look at this link.
this is a way of trying to find the original Biblical "kinds"

http://www.bryancore.org/hdb/index.html

[tseeker]

Originally posted by aharvey

I can say with some confidence that all terrestrial animals (which does include the million or so known species of insects and other terrestrial invertebrates) are air-breathers.

Do you really believe that the Hebrew words in Genesis regarding air-breathers preserved on the Ark, two by two, included insects?

If so you are a fool. If not then you are a liar to include them in an analysis of Ark descendents.

So which is it? Are you a fool or a liar?

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

In fact, they do argue about this (see references in the Wood et al. paper I cited earlier), but I'm pleased that you don't have a problem with this. I assume, however, that you realize that one ancestral species producing more than one (sometimes hundreds!) of descendant species, each one inheriting much from their ancestors (i.e., descent from a common ancestor...) but each with its own distinct differences (...with modification), is called evolution!

I have never heard creationist argue that all or most all within the Canidae or the Felidae are not of the same Biblical "kind"

can anyone prove Canidae and Felidae are descendant from a common ancestor?

[aharvey]

Originally posted by tseeker

Do you really believe that the Hebrew words in Genesis regarding air-breathers preserved on the Ark, two by two, included insects?

If so you are a fool. If not then you are a liar to include them in an analysis of Ark descendents.

So which is it? Are you a fool or a liar?

Well, neither, as far as I can tell. Until your earlier post, I hadn't really given it much thought. In my apparent naivete, I guess I'd just assumed that, since a global flood of Biblical proportions would have destroyed invertebrates as effectively as vertebrates, they'd've needed the sanctuary of the Ark as well. What's foolish or dishonest about that?

And if the Ark wasn't involved with the preservation of invertebrates, then what's the creationist explanation for the existence of millions of species of terrestrial invertebrates today? As an invertebrate zoologist, I'm genuinely intrigued.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by brother Willi

I have never heard creationist argue that all or most all within the Canidae or the Felidae are not of the same Biblical "kind" I've never even heard a sound definition of what a creationist means when they use the term "Biblical kind".

Any thoughts?

[tseeker]

Originally posted by aharvey

Well, neither, as far as I can tell. Until your earlier post, I hadn't really given it much thought. In my apparent naivete, I guess I'd just assumed that, since a global flood of Biblical proportions would have destroyed invertebrates as effectively as vertebrates,

Is this another example of your naivete? (emphasis added)

[Jukia]

tseeker: what is that last post supposed to show, other than perhaps you did not think of invertebrates either?
Were airbreathing invertebrates on the ark? Simple question, no?

[avatar382]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

What makes you think that?



Did what -- force yourself to believe in young Earth creationism? You could have just come to a rational conclusion by analyzing the evidence. That's what many of us have done.

Tell me honestly - is not the main source of the Creationist viewpoint the Bible itself?

That is - Creationism results from and utterly depends on a literal interpretation of the Bible - no Bible, no creationism...

Whether you will admit it or not, it is highly unlikely that anyone doing research into origins will arrive at Creationism as a solution unless they are using the Bible as a guide.

Creationism is a religious belief. Its main vehicle is faith. Whether you want to admit it or not: when it comes down to it, the average creationist really doesn't care what science says, they believe that God says Creationism is what happened, so they believe it, end of story.

When I was a Christian, I believed Creationism not because I read any arguments for or against it, but because it is in the Bible and through my faith I believed everything in the Bible to be true.

It didn't matter what science said. It didn't matter what anyone else said. It didn't matter what evidence was found. *I* knew the truth.

[tseeker]

Originally posted by Jukia

tseeker: what is that last post supposed to show, other than perhaps you did not think of invertebrates either?
Were airbreathing invertebrates on the ark? Simple question, no?

The answer is simple from a scriptural viewpoint, namely, Noah was not told to specifically place on the Ark things like snails, slugs, insects, spiders, i.e. invertebrates.

On the other hand I don't see how he could have prevented some of same from getting on board accidentally.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by tseeker

The answer is simple from a scriptural viewpoint, namely, Noah was not told to specifically place on the Ark things like snails, slugs, insects, spiders, i.e. invertebrates.

Hmmm... Near as I can tell, no animals were specifically mentioned in the story... :think:

1. According to Genesis (8:17), YHWH made the following promise:

I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

So land dwelling insects wouldn not have been exempted from death in the flood.


2. YHWH then commanded Noah to bring two of every land creature aboard the ark:

"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."


3. In the following chapter, YHWH reiterates that all land animals - clean and unclean - were included...

"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."



So either Noah screwed up and disobeyed YHWH when he forgot the insects or Moses got it wrong when he wrote down the story...



Which explanation do you suppose is correct? :think:

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Zakath

I've never even heard a sound definition of what a creationist means when they use the term "Biblical kind".

Any thoughts?

http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html

[Jukia]

Tseeker: And that means what? That the terrestrial invertebrates we have today were? Noah's mistakes? God didn't think of them? Stowaways? How may beetle species are there now? How many "kinds" of beetles do you think got on board accidentally?

[Aussie Thinker]

Tseeker,

You have a great love of asking wether people are fools or liars…

I guess that is because you have a great swathe of both characteristics yourself ?

Aharvey CLEARLY showed you the ridiculousness of the creationist position in regard to the survival of insects and you answer… “are you’re a fool or a liar”..

Classic creationist scramble to avoid reality.

Brother Willi…

I am starting to wonder wether you can actually comprehend the MOST simple concept.

I stated (and Zak reiterated more eloquently) that EVERY thing ever known has had a natural origin. This is NOT a belief system, or something I wish was true.. it is an unassailable FACT.

To deny it you would have to present me something KNOWN to be supernatural, you attempt at this was.. “look in the mirror”.. well you may THINK we are supernatural but that is hardly something KNOWN.

[Jukia]

willi: that cite states "It is certain, givne the number of species alive today, that the Biblical kinds have speciated countless times since their reintroduction following the floof of Noah"
Sweet Lord, sounds like, God forgive me the heresy--evolution?

Am I missing something or am I supposed to ignore this, yet pay attention to something else in this site?

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker


Brother Willi…

I am starting to wonder wether you can actually comprehend the MOST simple concept.

I stated (and Zak reiterated more eloquently) that EVERY thing ever known has had a natural origin. This is NOT a belief system, or something I wish was true.. it is an unassailable FACT.


stop sayin it and prove your point.
I say you as an athiest MUST believe everything started naturally, YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Jukia

willi: that cite states "It is certain, givne the number of species alive today, that the Biblical kinds have speciated countless times since their reintroduction following the floof of Noah"
Sweet Lord, sounds like, God forgive me the heresy--evolution?

Am I missing something or am I supposed to ignore this, yet pay attention to something else in this site?
Zatath ask, I found him a site.

as to your question.
Do creationists believe God created every species of dogs as a "kind"?
does it say each "species" is a Biblical "kind"?

NO
and
NO


wolves and dogs are in the same kind

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by avatar382

Tell me honestly - is not the main source of the Creationist viewpoint the Bible itself?

Ultimately, yes. What would you say the main source of the evolutionist viewpoint is?

That is - Creationism results from and utterly depends on a literal interpretation of the Bible - no Bible, no creationism...

Not necessarily. Christianity is hardly the only belief system that deals with origins.

Whether you will admit it or not, it is highly unlikely that anyone doing research into origins will arrive at Creationism as a solution unless they are using the Bible as a guide.

What exactly do you mean by 'as a guide,' and what would you say evolutionists use as a guide?

Creationism is a religious belief.

So is evolution.

Its main vehicle is faith.

Ditto.

Whether you want to admit it or not: when it comes down to it, the average creationist really doesn't care what science says,

Actually, it's popular opinion that generally doesn't impress us.

they believe that God says Creationism is what happened, so they believe it, end of story.

And if such a thing is true, then what's wrong with this?

When I was a Christian, I believed Creationism not because I read any arguments for or against it,

That figures.

but because it is in the Bible and through my faith I believed everything in the Bible to be true.

That's not a bad place to start, but it's just a start.

It didn't matter what science said.

Why didn't it?

It didn't matter what anyone else said.

Obviously, that doesn't matter much to me, either.

It didn't matter what evidence was found.

What evidence?

*I* knew the truth.

And you willfully rejected it. Congratulations.

[Jukia]

Jack: Evolution is not a religious belief. It does not depend on God.

willi: I am just a bit confused since that site dealing with "kinds" clearly seems to support evolution. Were you offering that site as some sort of support for the Biblical idea that God save "kinds" yet evolution remains godless nonsense?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
So is evolution.

Evolution is not a religion.


re·li·gion
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Jukia

Jack: Evolution is not a religious belief.

Sure it is.

It does not depend on God.

No, but it is taken on faith.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Evolution is not a religion.

Of course it isn't. But it is a religious belief.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
as to your question.
Do creationists believe God created every species?
does it say each "species" is a Biblical "kind"?

NO
and
NO

So if you have no problem with variety within a genus, why do you have a problem with variety within a family or within an order?

[Jukia]

No, it is taken on evidence.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Of course it isn't. But it is a religious belief.

Sorry about the wording error.

Evolution is not a religious belief.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Jukia

No, it is taken on evidence.

What evidence?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Sorry about the wording error.

No problem.

Evolution is not a religious belief.

Sure it is. It's accepted by faith -- just like any other religious belief.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

So if you have no problem with variety within a genus, why do you have a problem with variety within a family or within an order?

I have trouble with evolutions POOFS
to see a wolf is the same "kind" as a dog is easy, they can breed with each other.

Evolution clames a Hippo and Whale are descendent from each other.
think of the evolutionary POOF it took to put a breathing hole on top of the whales head.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Sure it is. It's accepted by faith -- just like any other religious belief.
they just hate to admit they have faith dont they:chuckle:

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by brother Willi

they just hate to admit they have faith dont they:chuckle:

I guess they think faith is bad.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Sure it is. It's accepted by faith -- just like any other religious belief.

Assuming for a second that were true, it would be a belief, not a religious belief.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
I have trouble with evolutions POOFS
to see a wolf is the same "kind" as a dog is easy, they can breed with each other.

Evolution clames a Hippo and Whale are descendent from each other.
think of the evolutionary POOF it took to put a breathing hole on top of the whales head.

What do you think caused the variety within a kind?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by brother Willi
Evolution clames a Hippo and Whale are descendent from each other.

Actually, I don't think evolution makes this claim. It does however, claim that these two animals share a common ancestor. But then again, it also claims that bananas and humans share a common ancestor...

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I guess they think faith is bad.

I prefer knowledge.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Assuming for a second that were true, it would be a belief, not a religious belief.

You can call it whatever you like. It is what it is.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

I prefer knowledge.

Then why do you take evolution on faith?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Then why do you take evolution on faith?

I don't.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
You can call it whatever you like. It is what it is.

I realize that it is just a matter of semantics, but I dislike hearing about how evolution is a religion.

[/diversion]

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

I don't.

Oh, so you've seen a repeatable demonstration of evolution? Because if you haven't, the only basis you have for your belief in evolution is faith.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

I realize that it is just a matter of semantics, but I dislike hearing about how evolution is a religion.

[/diversion]

I never said evolution was a religion. I said it was a religious belief.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Actually, I don't think evolution makes this claim. It does however, claim that these two animals share a common ancestor. But then again, it also claims that bananas and humans share a common ancestor...
you are correct , I worded it wrong

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I never said evolution was a religion. I said it was a religious belief.

You don't, others do.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

What do you think caused the variety within a kind?
God gave "kinds" the ability to adapt

you want to start a new thread and explain how evolution POOFED a breathing hole on top of the whale?

:darwinsm:

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

You don't, others do.
I just want to see you admit you have faith

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
God gave "kinds" the ability to adapt


How did they adapt?

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Greywolf

How did they adapt?
I answered that
"God gave "kinds" the ability to adapt"

whats your answer?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by brother Willi
I answered that
"God gave "kinds" the ability to adapt"

whats your answer?

Let me rephrase my question:

Through what process did the "kinds" adapt?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Oh, so you've seen a repeatable demonstration of evolution? Because if you haven't, the only basis you have for your belief in evolution is faith.

Microevolution, yes.
Macroevolution, no.

That does not mean that it is a matter of faith. It is merely a matter of looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion.

I accept the theory of gravity, but I have never observed an exchange of gravitons between two objects. Does that mean that my acceptance of the theory of gravity is based on faith?

[One Eyed Jack]

Ever fell down?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Ever fell down?

I don't doubt that gravity exists, I'm talking about the theory of gravity.

Have you ever observed the exchange of gravitons between two objects?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

I don't doubt that gravity exists, I'm talking about the theory of gravity.

Have you ever observed the exchange of gravitons between two objects?

Of course I haven't -- noone ever has. I'm not even sure gravitons exist.

[avatar382]

What would you say the main source of the evolutionist viewpoint is?

The best way I can describe the main source of evolutionary theory is: The Scientific Method. It is the foremost method of logically solving problems. The scientific method has the following qualities:

1.) It assumes that everything can be explained naturalistically. This follows because the supernatural falls ouside of the realm of logic. Science cannot function outside of logic.
2.) An detailed oberservation of the phenomena is made.
3.) Based on this observation, a hypothesis, a preliminary attempt to explain the observation is formed.
4.) Predictions, that is, logical consequences that result from the hypothesis, are formed.
5.) Through experimentation, these predictions are tested. Over time, enough test results support the predictions and support the hypothesis, it may become a theory. If new observations or tests are made that discount the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.

Like any other philosophical construct, the Scientific Method depends on axioms. Thus, I concede that on some level, science does depends on some measure "faith". Everything does. However, Faith in what?

Science depends on the faith that we can trust what we see and hear and feel.
It depends on the faith that the rules of logic apply to the universe and are a valid way of determining truth.

Say what you will about science - you can call it religious, or whatever you like - however, science can claim one thing that religion cannot - science WORKS.

Thanks to science, we have computers, medicine, electricity, cars, planes, agricultue, men in space... the list goes on and on and on.

Tell me, what scientific advances have resulted solely from a clergyman in prayer?

What knowledge about the world around us has been created by divine mandate? (i.e., a booming voices from the sky?)

There are few trends throughout human history that have held constant throughout the ages, and here's one: Scientific advance and knowledge always leads to an improvement in the quality of life of man.

That is why I put my trust in science and the hard work of the men and women to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of it. Science has a history of results.

Religion does not start with oberservations.
It does not formulate hypotheses.
It does not make predictions.
It is not testable.
It is not modifiable.
It does not create new knowledge.
It is often proven to be wrong.

Religion starts and ends with an assertation. How does it defend that assertation? With an appeal to the supernatural. That is, an appeal outside of logic.

Religion is about hope - hope to qualm man's fear of the unknown. To many, it is a comfort in a world where comforts are scarce. I believe religion has a place in our world - however, that place is not telling the rest of us how our world works.

That is the difference between science and religion. To call one the other is, IMHO, pretty stupid.

[One Eyed Jack]

Creationists use the scientific method as well, so that can hardly be considered the main source of the evolutionary viewpoint. Let's try this again. What would you say is the main source of the evolutionary viewpoint? If you wanna know what I think, I'll tell you, but I wanna see you take a shot at it first.

[Aussie Thinker]

OEJ,

Creationists use the scientific method as well

No they do not. They have NO theory, or predictable or testable hypothesis. They have “God did it”.. That may sound like scientific method to you Jack but to normal people it aint !


so that can hardly be considered the main source of the evolutionary viewpoint. Let's try this again. What would you say is the main source of the evolutionary viewpoint? If you wanna know what I think, I'll tell you, but I wanna see you take a shot at it first.

The main source of the evolutionary viewpoint is to provide a naturalistic answer for why we are here so that we can deny God… LOL.. That is what YOU think !

That is just stupid. It is even more stupid that you think this is the reason for evolution.

Evolution theory came about in spite of the normal human urge to WANT a God and WANT an afterlife and meaning for existence.

It came about through overwhelming evidence and observation, it came about in spite of the incredible pressure to abandon it from the Church. It came about because it was the ONLY way to explain how we came about that could be tested, tried, examined and found correct.

It came about because in spite of how much humans wanted to believe in all the myths and legends NONE of them fitted the evidence.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

No they do not.

Sure they do. Many practicing scientists are creationists.

The main source of the evolutionary viewpoint is to provide a naturalistic answer for why we are here so that we can deny God…

The source of an idea and its goal are two entirely different things. If that was your attempt at answering the question, you might want to try again.

LOL.. That is what YOU think !

I'll be the one to tell you what I think, thank you very much.

[Aussie Thinker]

Jack just GOTTA love the way you pick out the little pieces of threads that you can find little one line answers to.

One of these days you will surprise everyone and attempt more than 3 lines and actually answer some questions…. Not

I'll be the one to tell you what I think, thank you very much.

Jack .. what you think is an open book. I could answer almost every question on all these threads for you.

You never change grow or learn anything, your mind is closed to reality.

Try giving me your login and I will post as you from now on.. lets see how long it takes for anyone to notice the difference..

[Yorzhik]

I would love to get in on this conversation. But besides not having the time, the list in the first post is hard for me to understand.

I've only touched on this with Strat, but it seems to me that we are basing species on looks. That is, a subjective guess.

In my opinion, we should dispence with "morphologically distiguishable" because it has no meaning apart from "looks different". As we know from races, or dogs, that animals can look extremely different and still be the same species/kind. We need to have a better test, one based on the DNA that isn't so subjective.

This also brings up another problem that isn't listed in the table. It is not only the amount of differences in the DNA from the various bugs, but where those differences are. For evolution to be a vialble explaination, we need a pathway to each "different DNA". In answer to question 1: If a few changes (that might make the classification "virtually identical") has no evolutionary pathway to both from a common ancestor, then that is the point I would reject an evolutionary explaination.

In answer to question 2: because that is a point (not the only one tp consider, but the first one I think of) where science has filled a gap in knowledge required to determine the viability of the ToE.

In answer to question 3: At this point I wouldn't have an answer until we moved past the current discussion of points 1 and 2, to another one that discussed possible alternative explainations. We shouldn't even consider this until we are done with points 1 and 2.

In answer to question 4: That would depend on the conclusion of what was discussed on point 3.

[aharvey]

Criminy, I can't leave you guys alone for a minute. I thought we were getting somewhere when I left, and now we're back to
"There's NO evidence for evolution" "Yes there is!" and
"Evolution is a religion!" "No it's not!"

Originally posted by brother Willi

{to a post from Greywolf: How did they adapt?}

I answered that
"God gave "kinds" the ability to adapt"

whats your answer?

Look, the whole "creationism vs. evolution" thing is a false dichotomy. Creationists accept the reality of evolution even as they deny the evidence for it, and I'm not merely talking about the micro vs. macroevolution issue (which, incidentally, is another false dichotomy, but that's another story).

Don't believe me, Brother Willi? Go back to the Creation Science Resource link that you yourself sent us (http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html ):

"It is thought there are between 5 and 50 million species on earth today, with only 1.75 million characterized and named. The relative number of terrestrial species per major taxa are listed below, and this does not include insects and spiders which alone exceed 1 million. It is certain given the number of species alive today that the Biblical kinds have speciated countless times since their reintroduction following the flood of Noah. It is believed by many creationists that the mammalian Family level of classification is closely synonymous to the Biblical kinds for many animals, and the various species within have evolved since the flood."

Got it? Evolution. And not merely evolution within a single species, but rampant evolution of new species and genera.

Perhaps you say, "Well, then, they must mean a different kind of evolution than the one you evolutionary biologists believe in." Well, let's go back to that same creationist page:

"Related populations instinctively remain reproductively separate following a period of isolation, and eventually will become genetically incompatible and unable to mate. Speciation does seem to occur on a fairly regular basis, and along with independent selective pressure has caused the Biblical kinds to become a plethora of uniquely specialized communities. A single species or more from each kind has essentially evolved into many genera of species. For example the canines now exist as many species of foxes, many species of wolves, Jackals, hyena, etc. This level of evolution is termed macroevolution."

So what have we got here: the critical role of population level dynamics in the evolutionary process, genetic differentiation over time, natural selection, isolating mechanisms leading to reproductive isolation, allopatric speciation, a single ancestral taxon leading to 14 extant genera, 34 extant species: this is all mainstream evolutionary theory.

So, despite the "No evolution" button at the bottom of this same page, the Creation Science Resource does in fact buy into the principles of evolutionary theory (and it's not the only one). The problem is therefore a perceived matter of degree: it's okay to attribute to evolution that much observed variation across taxa, but not that much more.

The goals of my original post, of course, were to get some idea of the minimal size of "that much more," and to learn why "that much more" variation is in fact too much for evolution to handle, when "that much" is okay, and I'm not done with that. But for now let me simply suggest that the creationist's problems are not with "evolutionary theory" or its "lack of evidence," but rather with some of its predictions (e.g., humans share a common ancestor with anything else) or associated ideas (e.g., the Earth is very old, which, if you don't like, is something you should complain to geologists and physicists about, not evolutionary biologists!). It will be a lot easier to discuss, debate, even resolve our disagreements if we understand what they are!

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Oh, so you've seen a repeatable demonstration of evolution? Because if you haven't, the only basis you have for your belief in evolution is faith.

Examples abound of mutation and "drift" in a population of a particular species, even on time scales that we can "observe." As you know, even creationists admit this...

http://www.creationism.org/heinze/PresentDayEx.htm

But what "creationists" seem to have so much trouble understanding is that such mutation and drift in so-called "micro-evolution" are the SAME causes as the causes in so-called "macro-evolution." So many people admit to "micro-evolution" because we can observe small changes in populations directly, but then they fall back on the red herring of differentiating between "micro" and "macro" because the latter is supposedly not "directly" observable. You can't have it both ways.

From the above web site:

"In the case of the fruit flies, the mutations, when not fatal, frequently caused visible defects such as the loss of wings or eyes, but all the fruit flies remained fruit flies and the bacteria remained bacteria."

Thanks for the tautologies: "fruit flies remained fruit flies" and "bacteria remained bacteria." What the writer does not recognize is that so-called "defects" reinforce the relative advantage of stuff like eyes and wings.

"While this research has added to our knowledge about mutations and heredity, not one of the billions of individuals studied has ever evolved into a more complex life form,..."

Duh. That's not what the theory of evolution proposes. See my earlier posts about gradual change in the values of an array.

"...or provided other evidence that would serve to prove the theory of evolution. While evolutionists often refer to these studies, they don't include them among the text book examples of evolutionary progress in our time."

This is simply wrong.

[avatar382]

Originally posted by aharvey

Criminy, I can't leave you guys alone for a minute. I thought we were getting somewhere when I left, and now we're back to
"There's NO evidence for evolution" "Yes there is!" and
"Evolution is a religion!" "No it's not!"



Look, the whole "creationism vs. evolution" thing is a false dichotomy. Creationists accept the reality of evolution even as they deny the evidence for it, and I'm not merely talking about the micro vs. macroevolution issue (which, incidentally, is another false dichotomy, but that's another story).

Don't believe me, Brother Willi? Go back to the Creation Science Resource link that you yourself sent us (http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html ):

"It is thought there are between 5 and 50 million species on earth today, with only 1.75 million characterized and named. The relative number of terrestrial species per major taxa are listed below, and this does not include insects and spiders which alone exceed 1 million. It is certain given the number of species alive today that the Biblical kinds have speciated countless times since their reintroduction following the flood of Noah. It is believed by many creationists that the mammalian Family level of classification is closely synonymous to the Biblical kinds for many animals, and the various species within have evolved since the flood."

Got it? Evolution. And not merely evolution within a single species, but rampant evolution of new species and genera.

Perhaps you say, "Well, then, they must mean a different kind of evolution than the one you evolutionary biologists believe in." Well, let's go back to that same creationist page:

"Related populations instinctively remain reproductively separate following a period of isolation, and eventually will become genetically incompatible and unable to mate. Speciation does seem to occur on a fairly regular basis, and along with independent selective pressure has caused the Biblical kinds to become a plethora of uniquely specialized communities. A single species or more from each kind has essentially evolved into many genera of species. For example the canines now exist as many species of foxes, many species of wolves, Jackals, hyena, etc. This level of evolution is termed macroevolution."

So what have we got here: the critical role of population level dynamics in the evolutionary process, genetic differentiation over time, natural selection, isolating mechanisms leading to reproductive isolation, allopatric speciation, a single ancestral taxon leading to 14 extant genera, 34 extant species: this is all mainstream evolutionary theory.

So, despite the "No evolution" button at the bottom of this same page, the Creation Science Resource does in fact buy into the principles of evolutionary theory (and it's not the only one). The problem is therefore a perceived matter of degree: it's okay to attribute to evolution that much observed variation across taxa, but not that much more.

The goals of my original post, of course, were to get some idea of the minimal size of "that much more," and to learn why "that much more" variation is in fact too much for evolution to handle, when "that much" is okay, and I'm not done with that. But for now let me simply suggest that the creationist's problems are not with "evolutionary theory" or its "lack of evidence," but rather with some of its predictions (e.g., humans share a common ancestor with anything else) or associated ideas (e.g., the Earth is very old, which, if you don't like, is something you should complain to geologists and physicists about, not evolutionary biologists!). It will be a lot easier to discuss, debate, even resolve our disagreements if we understand what they are!

Excellent post!

Personally, I am of the opinion that many creationists attack evolution because they feel that is is an ideological threat, since it's "spirit" is to explain origins from a naturalistic persepctive, and it's so important to them to share their supernatural "truth" with everyone..

Often, not always, but often, Creationists don't really understand what it is they are attacking...

[tseeker]

Originally posted by avatar382

Excellent post!

Personally, I am of the opinion that many creationists attack evolution because they feel that is is an ideological threat, since it's "spirit" is to explain origins from a naturalistic persepctive, and it's so important to them to share their supernatural "truth" with everyone..

Often, not always, but often, Creationists don't really understand what it is they are attacking...

Actually some of us understand it better than most evolutionists.

Whenever I hear some evolutionists talking about "millions of species" it is a sure bet that they are aiming to mock the Genesis account of the Flood.

Speciation, if you care to use such a poorly defined word, can occur without the "goo to the zoo" definition of evolution. All that is required is minor change, sometimes a single mutation will do it.

Hypothetical transformation of one major type to another is an entirely different matter.

Genesis states that the major categories were established during Creation Week.

Now that so much is known about genomes, this is the only reasonable explanation for what is seen today and in the fossil record. Recombination, horizontal gene transfer and to a far lesser extent mutations can easily generate what we see today in only a few thousand years, provided that one starts with the major categories in the first place, as Genesis relates.

Rather than a "myth" Genesis seems to be more scientific than most evolutionists, who still cling to a modern version of an age old fantasy.

Genesis Flood Data

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

BEAST
929. behemah, be-hay-maw'; from an unused root (prob. mean. to be mute); prop. a dumb beast; espec. any large quadruped or animal (often collect.):--beast, cattle.

CREEPING THING
7431. remes, reh'-mes; from H7430; a reptile or any other rapidly moving animal:--that creepeth, creeping (moving) thing.

FOWLS
5775. 'owph, ofe; from H5774; a bird (as covered with feathers, or rather as covering with wings), often collect.:--bird, that flieth, flying, fowl.


Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.


Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.


Gen 7: 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

3351. yequwm, yek-oom'; from H6965; prop. standing (extant), i.e. by impl. a living thing:--(living) substance.

6965. quwm, koom; a prim. root; to rise (in various applications, lit. fig., intens. and caus.):--abide, accomplish, X be clearer, confirm, continue, decree, X be dim, endure, X enemy, enjoin, get up, make good, help, hold, (help to) lift up (again), make, X but newly, ordain, perform, pitch, raise (up), rear (up), remain, (a-) rise (up) (again, against), rouse up, set (up), (e-) stablish, (make to) stand


Gen 7: 8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


Gen n7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.


Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

3351. yequwm, yek-oom'; from H6965; prop. standing (extant), i.e. by impl. a living thing:--(living) substance.


Gen 8: 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;

3351. yequwm, yek-oom'; from H6965; prop. standing (extant), i.e. by impl. a living thing:--(living) substance.

2416. chay, khah'ee; from H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong, also (as noun, espec. in the fem. sing. and masc. plur.) life (or living thing), whether lit. or fig.:-- + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.


Gen 8: 17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him:
19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.
20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.


9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

7430. ramas, raw-mas; a prim. root; prop. to glide swiftly, i.e. to crawl or move with short steps; by analogy to swarm:--creep, move.


Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

1320. basar, baw-sawr'; from H1319; flesh (from its freshness); by extens. body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of a man:--body, [fat, lean] flesh [-ed], kin, [man-] kind, + nakedness, self, skin.

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

If anyone thinks that God commanded to be brought into the Ark insects, spiders, snails, slugs, molluscs, etc. I can only say that your obsession with evolution has blinded you to the truth that even a child can understand from scripture.

[Zakath]

I find it amusing that people must bolster their silly conjectures using one particular 300 year old version of a translation of a book they couldn't even read in its original language.

Perhaps that's becase other translations, written in modern english don't have the same ridiculous renderings that the KJV does.

I guess the folks on the NIV translation team are either "blinded by obsession with evolution" or have some other difficulty.

They seem to think that all animals were brought aboard the ark.

"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth." - Gen. 7:2-3


"On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. " Genesis 7: 13-16

[Zakath]

So, tseeker.

What is the definition of a biblical "kind."

[tseeker]

Originally posted by Zakath

So, tseeker.

What is the definition of a biblical "kind."

Today, there is no simple, definitive answer, mostly because so few creatures have had their genomes completely sequenced.

The best guess, lacking genomic scientific verification (which is now just being to surface), is that for some phlya it is probably close to the level currently defined as "genus", for other phyla the level currently defined as "family".

Incidentally, these "scientific" classification levels are essentially as pooly defined as "species". Thus, asking for a definition of biblical kind is quite disingenuous, since modern science has difficulty defining classifications to unambiguously "fit" the myriad numbers of extant and extinct types of living forms.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by tseeker

Today, there is no simple, definitive answer, mostly because so few creatures have had their genomes completely sequenced.

The best guess, lacking genomic scientific verification (which is now just being to surface), is that for some phlya it is probably close to the level currently defined as "genus", for other phyla the level currently defined as "family".So, in other words, you haven't got a definitive answer and, after almost 4,000 years of biblical study, you people don't know what the bible means by "kind". Thus, to get things to fit, you essentially reverse engineer an answer until the number of kinds of animals necessary is small enough to fit your preconceptions.

That process of making the data fit your theory, instead of the other way round, is why those of us in the scientific community usually snicker when the term "science" is mixed with "creationism".

Incidentally, these "scientific" classification levels are essentially as pooly defined as "species". Thus, asking for a definition of biblical kind is quite disingenuous, since modern science has difficulty defining classifications to unambiguously "fit" the myriad numbers of extant and extinct types of living forms. Perhaps if you spent more effort on actually answering questions concretely instead of attacking the alleged shortcomings of phylogentics you would have more credibility with your audience.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Zakath

That process of making the data fit your theory, instead of the other way round, is why those of us in the scientific community usually snicker when the term "science" is mixed with "creationism".

Unfortunately.

I thought the purpose of Genesis 1-11 was to serve as a polemic against the polytheistic worldviews found in the Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh epics, which both pre-date even Moses.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo
I thought the purpose of Genesis 1-11 was to serve as a polemic against the polytheistic worldviews found in the Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh epics, which both pre-date even Moses. SHHHH! :shocked:

Don't disturb those folks with reasonable answers. They'll just start hurling invective and condemning you as a false believer or some such. :chuckle:

[cur_deus_homo]

And if I don't literally believe in every detail of the flood narrative then the whole Bible is called into question and then the resurrection of Jesus is called into question and then I have a crisis of faith and then ... and then ... and then I don't believe any more! :noid:

Good thing my faith flows from much more than a literalistic interpretation of the Bible or even solely from the Bible itself, however interpreted.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

And if I don't literally believe in every detail of the flood narrative then the whole Bible is called into question and then the resurrection of Jesus is called into question and then I have a crisis of faith and then ... and then ... and then I don't believe any more! :noid:

By George! I think he's got it!

Good thing my faith flows from much more than a literalistic interpretation of the Bible or even solely from the Bible itself, however interpreted.
[ :( Darn! I thought we had him for a moment...]

:chuckle:

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by Zakath

By George! I think he's got it!


[ :( Darn! I thought we had him for a moment...]

:chuckle:

Like you have said...

Been there.
Done that.
Got the T-shirt.
.
.
.
But T-shirts don't last very long.

[Zakath]

You're not kidding... :chuckle:

[cur_deus_homo]

Back to the subject at hand.

I thought I had answered aharvey's question that originated this thread, namely back in post #24:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=482043#post482043

In other words, there is no "answer" from a "creationist" perspective because they either completely misunderstand the concept of evolution or if they do understand it they categorically reject it a priori and therefore aharvey's question is like asking a hardcore Calvinist "when" he or she "became" elect. Answer: when God elected me at the foundation of the world, not at some point between my conception and death.

[Zakath]

So you're saying that perhaps they can agree to disagree?

[cur_deus_homo]

That would be boring. No, I suggest we all keep fighting for our version of the "truth." :box:

[Zakath]

[Cue music theme from "Rocky"]

Now that's more like TOL's style.

Beat 'em, punch 'em, kick 'em when they're down!

:box:

[Fade theme...]

[tseeker]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

And if I don't literally believe in every detail of the flood narrative then the whole Bible is called into question and then the resurrection of Jesus is called into question and then I have a crisis of faith and then ... and then ... and then I don't believe any more! :noid:

Good thing my faith flows from much more than a literalistic interpretation of the Bible or even solely from the Bible itself, however interpreted.

Actually I don't blame you for believing as you do, since I was at the same point you are not that long ago.

However, when I re-examined the book of Genesis after having rejected it in my youth as being "mythological" I was rather surprised to find that it made more scientific sense than its chief competition, the Theory of Evolution.

How did those ancient sheep herders manage such a feat of prognostication?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by tseeker
However, when I re-examined the book of Genesis after having rejected it in my youth as being "mythological" I was rather surprised to find that it made more scientific sense than its chief competition, the Theory of Evolution.If you honestly believe that, you should study more science. :chuckle:

How did those ancient sheep herders manage such a feat of prognostication? Simple, they wrote down what they had heard from more advanced civilizations.

[aharvey]

(Our server went AWOL for a while; this may be a bit obsolete)

Originally posted by tseeker

Whenever I hear some evolutionists talking about "millions of species" it is a sure bet that they are aiming to mock the Genesis account of the Flood.

I'll take that bet. Every mention I've ever heard, read, or made, to "millions of species" refers to the fact that there are, in fact, millions of species. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Genesis account of the Flood. There are millions of species. If you want to talk about a subset of those millions of species, you need to add the appropriate qualifiers, for example, "there are roughly 4,000 species of mammals"; "Noah brought roughly 8,000 [or whatever] species of air-breathing vertebrates onto the Ark." If you ask me how many species there are, and don't add the qualifiers appropriate to your specific interests, and I give you a range in the millions, that in no way implies mockery on my part.

And what does it mean when creationists refer to the millions of species on Earth today (e.g., yet again, )?

Originally posted by tseeker

Speciation, if you care to use such a poorly defined word, can occur without the "goo to the zoo" definition of evolution.

If I'm understanding what you mean by "goo to the zoo," then as per my previous post you're mistaking a prediction of evolutionary theory, for a definition of evolution.

Originally posted by tseeker

All that is required is minor change, sometimes a single mutation will do it.

Hypothetical transformation of one major type to another is an entirely different matter.

Yes, I've heard that many, many, many times. If these were "entirely different matters," though, you'd think they'd be easy to distinguish. However, I hope it's becoming clear in this thread that there isn't any nonarbitrary way to recognize a biblical kind, which implies that 'difference due to descent with modification' must look an awful lot like 'difference due to separate creation.' And since creationists already acknowledge that 'difference due to descent with modification' occurs, Occam's Razor would question the necessity for invoking a completely different mechanism to produce the same kind of result.

Originally posted by tseeker

Genesis Flood Data

If you're using the Genesis account of the Flood as a hypothesis explaining patterns of biodiversity, you can't consider it to be data in support of, well, itself. Same if you are instead assuming the Genesis account to be true.

Originally posted by tseeker

If anyone thinks that God commanded to be brought into the Ark insects, spiders, snails, slugs, molluscs, etc. I can only say that your obsession with evolution has blinded you to the truth that even a child can understand from scripture.

(I'm guessing most evolutionary biologists, at least, would strongly doubt that God made that particular command.)

You only seem to want to talk about the 20,000 or so extant species of terrestrial vertebrates, implying that the millions of invertebrate species are somehow irrelevant to the discussion of special creation vs. descent with modification. But here's the thing. The differences you see among the various vertebrate groups absolutely pales in comparison to the diversity found among the invertebrates. So it's not just that there are lots of invertebrates, or lots of species, but that they are such an incredibly diverse lot that demands accountability from any proposed mechanism of biodiversity. Evolutionary theory does not make a distinction between invertebrates and vertebrates (indeed, vertebrates are considered to be a subphylum of the otherwise invertebrate phylum Chordata!). In contrast, you've heatedly argued that the Genesis account of the Flood only applies to terrestrial vertebrates. So what's the Genesis-friendly explanation for everything else?

[avatar382]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Creationists use the scientific method as well, so that can hardly be considered the main source of the evolutionary viewpoint. Let's try this again. What would you say is the main source of the evolutionary viewpoint? If you wanna know what I think, I'll tell you, but I wanna see you take a shot at it first.

How does Creationism use the scientific method? What predictions has creationism tested and found to be true? What new knowledge has been created via Creation science? (HINT: "knowledge" that supports the creation story is NOT new knowledge!)

Also - how is it that the evolutionary viewpoint is not based on the scientific method? What is it based on, if not that?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by tseeker

Actually I don't blame you for believing as you do, since I was at the same point you are not that long ago.

However, when I re-examined the book of Genesis after having rejected it in my youth as being "mythological" I was rather surprised to find that it made more scientific sense than its chief competition, the Theory of Evolution.
Are you implying that I reject Genesis because I view parts of it as being "mythological?"

If so, you have the wrong impression of my position. In a nutshell I would say that I embrace Genesis because some parts are "mythological."

Look at pictures from Hubble. I personally find it humbling to contemplate those pictures while thinking about the simplicity of Genesis 1:1.

However, I find it totally unsatisfying to look at those pictures and then try to consider Genesis 1:1 as a scientific explanation of what those pictures show us.

And, besides, where did you get this idea that one of the purposes of the Bible is to "compete" with scientific theories like evolution? The Hebrew Bible is a theological narrative of the people of Israel being called out of paganism and foreign oppression to worship the one and only God. That's enough for me to swim in its depths for my entire life.

Originally posted by tseeker
How did those ancient sheep herders manage such a feat of prognostication?
Ancient sheepherders didn't write Genesis, Moses did. :rolleyes:

[Jukia]

Oh, God, why do I feel like GA Custer with some of these threads. So painful to listen to creationists try to justify their position with science. Discussions of species, genome etc. Hard to deal with when the people using the terms have no real clue.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Jukia

Oh, God, why do I feel like GA Custer with some of these threads. So painful to listen to creationists try to justify their position with science. Discussions of species, genome etc. Hard to deal with when the people using the terms have no real clue.

Yeah, I see you still haven't coughed up any of that evidence I asked you for yesterday. Maybe it's because you don't have any.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by avatar382

How does Creationism use the scientific method? What predictions has creationism tested and found to be true? What new knowledge has been created via Creation science? (HINT: "knowledge" that supports the creation story is NOT new knowledge!)

Also - how is it that the evolutionary viewpoint is not based on the scientific method? What is it based on, if not that?

Is that your final answer -- the scientific method? If so, thanks for playing, and have a nice day.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo
And, besides, where did you get this idea that one of the purposes of the Bible is to "compete" with scientific theories like evolution? The Hebrew Bible is a theological narrative of the people of Israel being called out of paganism and foreign oppression to worship the one and only God.

Let me ask you something. How did the people of Israel know about the one true God? Did they just make Him up, or did He reveal Himself to them in some fashion? Or does it even make any difference to you?

[Aussie Thinker]

Cur-dues-homo,

Methinks you have raised Jack’s ire !

Your completely reasonable theology is an anathema to his fundy nutbaggery.

You are WAY more dangerous to the fundies than we atheists are.. YOU actually get listened too.. we atheists are dismissed as liars, cheats, spawn of the devil etc.. regardless of how much fact and truth we spread.. we are evil !!!

I warmed to you from the first post you made. I wish I could be so reasonable !

I hope for your Gods sake your type is the future of religion and not Jack’s type.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Cur-dues-homo,

Methinks you have raised Jack’s ire !

Ye thinks, huh? Relax, I was just wondering what his thoughts were concerning God's revelation to man.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Of course I haven't -- noone ever has. I'm not even sure gravitons exist.

Does that mean that your belief in the theory of gravity is based on faith?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Does that mean that your belief in the theory of gravity is based on faith?

Who said I believed in the theory of gravity?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Who said I believed in the theory of gravity?

True, you have me there.

Either way, my point still stands. The theory of evolution and my "belief" in it are both based on a conclusion drawn from examining the facts.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Who said I believed in the theory of gravity? Tell you what. You climb up on the roof of your building and jump off. If you float upwards or remain suspsended in the air, come tell us all about it.

If, on the other hand, you drop like the proverbial rock, let us know as well. You will have had a live demonstration of gravity, whether you choose to believe in it or not.

Too bad your deity can't provide the same kind of empirical demonstration... :think:

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

True, you have me there.

Either way, my point still stands. The theory of evolution and my "belief" in it are both based on a conclusion drawn from examining the facts.

What facts in particular did you find the most convincing?

[Zakath]

Jack, have you tried the "roof experiment" yet? :chuckle:

[Aussie Thinker]

Jack,

Just a few really obvious things.

1. Fossils from all over the world show that many different types of creature have inhabited this planet.
2. The fossil record combined with their dates show a clear progression of change to these creatures
3. We have observed AS fact all the mechanisms that can change creatures over time.
4. People who know MOST about all the sciences relevant to evolution overwhelming support the mechanism proposed for evolution
5. All things ever known have had a natural explantion
6. Evolution is the ONLY scientifically based explanation I have ever heard of.

How do those fit ?

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What facts in particular did you find the most convincing?

The arrangement of the fossil record. Vestigial organs. Homologous structures.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Jack,

Just a few really obvious things.

1. Fossils from all over the world show that many different types of creature have inhabited this planet.

Hey, you found something creationists and evolutionists can agree on. Good job.

2. The fossil record combined with their dates show a clear progression of change to these creatures

You don't have dates, you have guesses. Plus you have no idea whether or not these creatures are even related. If they're not, your 'clear progression of changes' becomes nothing more than 'differences.'

3. We have observed AS fact all the mechanisms that can change creatures over time.

What kind of changes are you talking about?

4. People who know MOST about all the sciences relevant to evolution overwhelming support the mechanism proposed for evolution

Huh?

5. All things ever known have had a natural explantion

There are many things that are unexplained.

6. Evolution is the ONLY scientifically based explanation I have ever heard of.

There are plenty of creationist scientists who would love to clue you in.

How do those fit ?

What do you mean?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

The arrangement of the fossil record.

There really isn't much of an arrangement. You can find fossils just about everywhere. The arrangment of the fossil record into geologic layers is more of a theoretical construct than anything else.

Vestigial organs.

What vestigial organs?

Homologous structures.

Why wouldn't a Creator use homologous structures?

[Aussie Thinker]

Jack,

Nobody is disputing that.

Added to how all these vastly different creatures could have lived at the same time and competed for habitat.. I would love to know another explanation !

You don't have dates, you have guesses.

If you are saying that between 60 & 70 million years as a date is a guess then I guess you are right. The simple fact is the dating methods for these things has been tried, tested and corroborated by so many sciences and methods that they are disputed NO where in the scientific community.

Plus you have no idea whether or not these creatures are even related. If they're not, your 'clear progression of changes' melts away.

Molecular genetic has clearly shown the genetic relationship between morphology EXACTLY as predicted by evolution. Creatures that look alike and evolution says branched most recently have the closest match in genomes. (raising the extremely rare anomalies in this are easily explained when creatures that look alike are genetically quite different due their similar requirements in their environment)

What kind of changes are you talking about?

Lets say the most simplified progression

Oldest fossils = Shellfish
Later we Find = Fish
Later we find = Amphibians
Later = Reptiles
Later = Mammals
Later = Birds

We don’t find Mammals in the early dated layers where we ONLY find shellfish

How obvious that that have to be ?

Huh?

That is you best answer yet

How much clearer can I be… “4.. People who know MOST about all the sciences relevant to evolution overwhelming support the mechanism proposed for evolution”

Virtually ALL experts in every relevant scientific field agree that evolution is a FACT and that method proposed by evolutionary theory fits HOW evolution occurred.

Scientists tell you that atoms exist … why do you believe them ? Have you ever seen one ?

Many things remain unknown.

Very true.. and if all things EVER known have a natural explantion does it make sense to think the unknown things will ALSO have a natrual explanation ?

There are plenty of creationist scientists who would love to clue you in.

I would love to know what their scientifically based theory is ?

God did it.. how to we scientifically test for God ?

BTW I assume the term “creationist scientist” is an oxymoron ?

How does what fit?

As explanations for why we assume the evolutionary model !

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
There really isn't much of an arrangement. You can find fossils just about everywhere. The arrangment of the fossil record into geologic layers is more of a theoretical construct than anything else.

I've seen examples of the arrangement of the fossil record. It isn't as theoretical as you might think.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What vestigial organs?

Appendix
Coccyx (although this isn't an organ)

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Why wouldn't a Creator use homologous structures?

I never said that a Creator wouldn't.

[avatar382]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Is that your final answer -- the scientific method? If so, thanks for playing, and have a nice day.

Well then, what do you think? What is the origin of evolutionary theory?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Jack,



Added to how all these vastly different creatures could have lived at the same time and competed for habitat.. I would love to know another explanation !

What makes you think their populations were so huge considering how little evidence of their existence even remains?

If you are saying that between 60 & 70 million years as a date is a guess then I guess you are right.

Of course I am.

Molecular genetic has clearly shown the genetic relationship between morphology EXACTLY as predicted by evolution.

What is the genetic relationship between morphology as predicted by the theory of evolution?

Creatures that look alike and evolution says branched most recently have the closest match in genomes. (raising the extremely rare anomalies in this are easily explained when creatures that look alike are genetically quite different due their similar requirements in their environment)

This doesn't mean they're related.

Lets say the most simplified progression

Oldest fossils = Shellfish
Later we Find = Fish
Later we find = Amphibians
Later = Reptiles
Later = Mammals
Later = Birds

We don’t find Mammals in the early dated layers where we ONLY find shellfish

That's because if they find a mammal in any given layer, they give that layer a later date. You know that.

Virtually ALL experts in every relevant scientific field agree that evolution is a FACT and that method proposed by evolutionary theory fits HOW evolution occurred.

So? Just because they all believe it doesn't mean it's a fact. Facts aren't determined by vote.

Scientists tell you that atoms exist … why do you believe them ?

If atoms don't exist, something just like them sure does. Just ask the Japanese -- they'll tell you.

Have you ever seen one ?

Have you?

Very true.. and if all things EVER known have a natural explantion does it make sense to think the unknown things will ALSO have a natrual explanation ?

Not really. Apparently it makes sense to you though.

I would love to know what their scientifically based theory is ?

There are a variety of different theories floating around concerning various aspects of creation.

God did it.. how to we scientifically test for God ?

We can't scientifically test for God, but we can scientifically test the accuracy of some of the claims made in the Bible.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

I've seen examples of the arrangement of the fossil record.

So have I.

It isn't as theoretical as you might think.

I'm referring to the geologic column, something that only exists in the textbooks.

Appendix

The appendix has a function.

Coccyx (although this isn't an organ)

It isn't vestigial either. There are several muscles attached to it, without which you couldn't perform some very important functions.

I never said that a Creator wouldn't.

Yet you say its one of the most convincing facts you've examined concerning the theory of evolution. Is there anything else you find especially convincing?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by avatar382

Well then, what do you think? What is the origin of evolutionary theory?

The minds of men. It's an idea -- nothing more.

[avatar382]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

I mean this with the best of intentions, but it sounds like your faith was built on sand instead of on the solid rock of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, the Living Christ. It's too bad your church and background apparently did not prepare you for even the rather puny assualts on Christian faith made by people with a naturalistic axe to grind.

Testimonies like yours are the most disturbing indictments of present-day Christianity in the so-called "developed" world. It's no wonder that where Christianity is really growing strong is in countries where people know suffering and thus the need for kindness and faith; these are the roots of Christianity.

I wanted to reply to this but did not want to hijack this thread. I've started a new thread here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=484978#post484978)

[avatar382]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

The minds of men. It's an idea -- nothing more.

But Jack, is not all science - the science behind nuclear power, space exploration, combustion engines, physics, medicine, chemistry, mathematics, etc basically all just the result of ideas from the minds of men?

Where else does knowledge about our world come from if not man's conjecture and subsequent testing and logical validation ultimately based on his observations of the physical properties of the world around us all?

[Yorzhik]

I thought I answered the questions. Perhaps it's best there is no response because with the way this tread moves it'll be 5 pages before I'd get a reply in.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by avatar382

But Jack, is not all science - the science behind nuclear power, space exploration, combustion engines, physics, medicine, chemistry, mathematics, etc basically all just the result of ideas from the minds of men?

Yeah. What kind of results do you get with evolution?

Where else does knowledge about our world come from if not man's conjecture and subsequent testing and logical validation ultimately based on his observations of the physical properties of the world around us all?

Revelation from God. Some things science just can't tell us.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Zakath

Tell you what. You climb up on the roof of your building and jump off. If you float upwards or remain suspsended in the air, come tell us all about it.

If, on the other hand, you drop like the proverbial rock, let us know as well. You will have had a live demonstration of gravity, whether you choose to believe in it or not.

Too bad your deity can't provide the same kind of empirical demonstration... :think:

Duh hyuck. :rolleyes: OEJ was simply pointing out that he hadn't used gravity in his arguments up to that point.

[Jukia]

Jack: You keep asking for evidence for evolution. I think you are bright enough to understand that there is substantial evidence for evolution. You are just blinded by your theology. You take your Biblical evidence and your faith in God's literal word over modern science. While that is certainly your free choice, to keep asking for evidence of evolution in an attempt to quarrel with it when you must know it exists is a bit intellectually dishonest.
The flip side of the coin is that if you do not understand that there is substantial evidence for evolution--well maybe you are not very bright after all.

[avatar382]

Yeah. What kind of results do you get with evolution?

Evolutionary theory is at the heart of modern biology. It is a unifying concept. If you are interested in reading about specific advances (new knowledge) made by possible by the research of evolution, let me know.

Revelation from God. Some things science just can't tell us.

Tell me, what new knowledge has man generated using revelation from God as a source?

[aharvey]

It's been fascinating to watch how effectively OEJ's evening burst of staccato retorts, with minimal, fragmented content, throws discussions into chaos.
It does seem a great way to prevent serious discussion of complex, controversial ideas.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

{replying to Jukia} Yeah, I see you still haven't coughed up any of that evidence I asked you for yesterday. Maybe it's because you don't have any.

No, I'll bet the reason is that Jukia knows it would be a waste of his time. Let's face it, OEJ, you will never acknowledge any data shown to you by an evolutionary biologist to be evidence for evolution. So why ask them? Instead, why don't you ask what evidence Young Earth Creationists have for their belief in evolution? {to save OEJ a little typing: "Why don't you?" Answer: Because I don't need the convincing; I'm not the one denying the existence of evidence for evolution.} Yes, it's time for a return trip to the Creation Science Resource link that Brother Willi sent us (http://www.nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html ):

"It is thought there are between 5 and 50 million species on earth today, with only 1.75 million characterized and named. The relative number of terrestrial species per major taxa are listed below, and this does not include insects and spiders which alone exceed 1 million. It is certain given the number of species alive today that the Biblical kinds have speciated countless times since their reintroduction following the flood of Noah. It is believed by many creationists that the mammalian Family level of classification is closely synonymous to the Biblical kinds for many animals, and the various species within have evolved since the flood."

Got it? Evolution. And not merely evolution within a single species, but rampant evolution of new species and genera.

Perhaps you say, "Well, then, they must mean a different kind of evolution than the one you evolutionary biologists believe in." {or, OEJ style: "That's not evolution."} Well, let's go back to that same creationist page:

"Related populations instinctively remain reproductively separate following a period of isolation, and eventually will become genetically incompatible and unable to mate. Speciation does seem to occur on a fairly regular basis, and along with independent selective pressure has caused the Biblical kinds to become a plethora of uniquely specialized communities. A single species or more from each kind has essentially evolved into many genera of species. For example the canines now exist as many species of foxes, many species of wolves, Jackals, hyena, etc. This level of evolution is termed macroevolution."

So what have we got here? The critical role of population level dynamics in the evolutionary process; genetic differentiation over time; natural selection; isolating mechanisms leading to reproductive isolation; allopatric speciation; a single ancestral taxon leading to 14 extant genera, 34 extant species: this is all mainstream evolutionary theory, being presented matter-of-factly by a creationist organization.

Don't you think it's time to move past the "there's no evidence for evolution; it's all based on faith" argument? Let me guess: "Why should I?"

[cur_deus_homo]

When I was addressing tseeker, I said:

"And, besides, where did you get this idea that one of the purposes of the Bible is to "compete" with scientific theories like evolution? The Hebrew Bible is a theological narrative of the people of Israel being called out of paganism and foreign oppression to worship the one and only God."

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Let me ask you something. How did the people of Israel know about the one true God? Did they just make Him up, or did He reveal Himself to them in some fashion? Or does it even make any difference to you?

This stuff really should be on another thread.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=13343

[Zakath]

Originally posted by wholearmor

OEJ was simply pointing out that he hadn't used gravity in his arguments up to that point. So?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by aharvey

So what have we got here?

"Creationists"

Some who undertand evolution and reject it.

Some who don't undertand evolution and reject it (a peculiar condition).

Some who won't undertand evolution and reject it (because to understand it would jeopardize their theological secutiry blanket).

Some who try real hard to understand evolution and prefer to leave the development of the science behind the theory to the professionals.


"Evolutionists"

Some who undertand "belief/faith" in God and reject it.

Some who don't undertand "belief/faith" and reject it (a peculiar condition).

Some who won't undertand "belief/faith" and reject it (because to understand it would jeopardize their philosophically naturalistic/materialistic assumptions about the world).

Some who try real hard to understand "belief/faith" and prefer to leave the development of the theology behind "belief/faith" to the professionals.



See? It wasn't so hard to get us all on the same page. :)

[Aussie Thinker]

AHarvey,

It's been fascinating to watch how effectively OEJ's evening burst of staccato retorts, with minimal, fragmented content, throws discussions into chaos.
It does seem a great way to prevent serious discussion of complex, controversial ideas.

You put it very nicely.

I wonder if Jack realises his clever non-answer 1 liners start to sound VERY dishonest. It is clear the guy is smart and it is clear he understands what is going on. It seems his method is a deliberate way to obscure, confuse and shut down sensible argument because he KNOWS logic and SENSE side with evolution.

I asked him a while ago to make an attempt to really discuss an issue.. I think he deliberately avoids it as he knows the devil in evolution will start whispering to him.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Jukia

Jack: You keep asking for evidence for evolution.

And you keep failing to provide any.

I think you are bright enough to understand that there is substantial evidence for evolution.

There's no evidence for evolution. If there were, you would have provided some.

You are just blinded by your theology.

Are all creationists blinded by their theology?

You take your Biblical evidence and your faith in God's literal word over modern science.

I take faith in God's word over everything. Don't you?

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

There's no evidence for evolution. If there were, you would have provided some.

Are there any King Crimson fans out there? If you are out there, you know that great song on "Discipline" called "Indiscipline?" Adrian Belew's repetitive scat in the middle of that song comes to mind:

I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress. I repeat myself when under stress.

[Aussie Thinker]

Maybe I was wrong...

Maybe Jack is NOT smart enough to respond meaningfully !

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I'm referring to the geologic column, something that only exists in the textbooks.

Define Geologic Column. (Just to make sure we're on the same page.)

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
The appendix has a function.

It isn't vestigial either. There are several muscles attached to it, without which you couldn't perform some very important functions.


ves·tig·i·al
Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure


de·gen·er·ate
Biology. Having lost one or more highly developed functions, characteristics, or structures through evolution: a degenerate life form.


Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Yet you say its one of the most convincing facts you've examined concerning the theory of evolution.

Yep. Homologous structures are great evidence for evolution.

Saying that a Creator could have used them doesn't really mean anything. From what I've heard, a Creator could have done pretty much anything he pleased.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Is there anything else you find especially convincing?

Embryology
The unifying power of the theory
Physical similarities with other related animals




And since we're discussing evidence, what facts do you think support creationism?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Define Geologic Column. (Just to make sure we're on the same page.)

A theoretical construct in which the Earth's strata are dated by geologic timescales.

As for defining vestigial and degenerate, I assume you did this to imply that you consider the coccyx and/or the appendix to have degenerated over time. If this is correct, could you please show us some evidence of their degeneration?

Yep. Homologous structures are great evidence for evolution.

Saying that a Creator could have used them doesn't really mean anything.

Neither does saying they're great evidence for evolution. What's so great about them?

From what I've heard, a Creator could have done pretty much anything he pleased.

Well sure, but there's no reason to think He wouldn't use homologous structures. In other words, I don't see how this particular fact favors evolution.

Embryology

What, specifically, about embryology convinces you of evolution?

The unifying power of the theory

What exactly does it unify, and what's the practical upshot of this?

Physical similarities with other related animals

What other related animals, and how do you know they're related?

And since we're discussing evidence, what facts do you think support creationism?

Pretty much the same sort of facts you see as evidence for evolution. That's why I find your answers so interesting. We're looking at the same things and reaching entirely different conclusions because our perspectives are completely different.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
A theoretical construct in which the Earth's strata are dated by geologic timescales.

Do you think that it is unreasonable to use the geologic column as a way of determining the historical progression of events?

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Neither does saying they're great evidence for evolution. What's so great about them?

They support the idea that different species are related.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Well sure, but there's no reason to think He wouldn't use homologous structures.

That's why I didn't say he wouldn't.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What, specifically, about embryology convinces you of evolution?

The striking similarity between the embryological development of many different animals.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What exactly does it unify, and what's the practical upshot of this?

It explains the similarities between animal species. It provides an explanation for the source of the diversity of life. It explains why animals seem to be fit for their habitats.

It's hard for me to explain it in words. It basically explains the features of every organism.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What other related animals, and how do you know they're related?

Here is one of the more common examples:

http://www.loyno.edu/~chood/zooweb/homology.jpg

I got ahead of myself in saying "related" animals. The commonalities between structures in different organisms indicate that those organisms are related.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Pretty much the same sort of facts you see as evidence for evolution. That's why I find your answers so interesting. We're reaching entirely different conclusions because our perspectives are completely different.

Interesting. :think:

How do you see the facts as supporting creationism?

[Jukia]

Greywolf: Simple the Bible tells him so. Jack admits there are "facts" which he uses to support his creationist ideas and they are "pretty much the same sort of facts you see as evidence for evolution". He is able to ignore the connections that those facts suggest to most of the rest of the world because they do not fit into his theological construct. He always sems to reduce the arguement to "what evidence?" but admits to seeing the same evidence. It is his interpretation of that evidence, supported by the "science" found at such places as AnswersInGenesis. Stuff that really does not meet the usual standards of science.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

A theoretical construct in which the Earth's strata are dated by geologic timescales.
The same "theoretical construct" archeologists use (among other scientific methods) to date evidence found in the tells of the lands of the Bible.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Jukia
Greywolf: Simple the Bible tells him so. Jack admits there are "facts" which he uses to support his creationist ideas and they are "pretty much the same sort of facts you see as evidence for evolution". He is able to ignore the connections that those facts suggest to most of the rest of the world because they do not fit into his theological construct. He always sems to reduce the arguement to "what evidence?" but admits to seeing the same evidence. It is his interpretation of that evidence, supported by the "science" found at such places as AnswersInGenesis. Stuff that really does not meet the usual standards of science.

We'll see.

(Although I share your sentiments about AiG.)

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Jukia

He always sems to reduce the arguement to "what evidence?" but admits to seeing the same evidence.

No sir, I've admitted to no such thing. You should have read my statement more carefully. I've never seen any evidence for evolution.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

The same "theoretical construct" archeologists use (among other scientific methods) to date evidence found in the tells of the lands of the Bible.

What would an archaeologist need with the geologic column? Unlike the paleontologist, who deals with prehistory, the archaeologist deals with matters concerning human history. They rarely, if ever, use the geologic column.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Greywolf

Do you think that it is unreasonable to use the geologic column as a way of determining the historical progression of events?

Considering that it has nothing to do with history, yeah, I do.

They support the idea that different species are related.

How?

That's why I didn't say he wouldn't.

Would it be fair to say that any evidence for evolution could be seen as evidence against creation?

The striking similarity between the embryological development of many different animals.

What sort of similarities?

It explains the similarities between animal species.

What sort of similarities? And are similarities automatically indicative of evolution?

It provides an explanation for the source of the diversity of life.

What exactly is the source of the diversity of life?

It explains why animals seem to be fit for their habitats.

Dude, that's a no-brainer. If an animal isn't suited to its habitat, it's going to move somewhere else or die.

It's hard for me to explain it in words. It basically explains the features of every organism.

Okay, but you spoke of its unifying power. What exactly does it unify?

Here is one of the more common examples:

http://www.loyno.edu/~chood/zooweb/homology.jpg

What, forelimbs have bones in them? I don't see how that serves as evidence for evolution.

I got ahead of myself in saying "related" animals. The commonalities between structures in different organisms indicate that those organisms are related.

How do commonalities indicate that they're related? Maybe they just had the same designer.

Interesting. :think:

How do you see the facts as supporting creationism?

Let me give you an example. If the flood story is true, we should expect to find millions of dead things buried in the rock. This is exactly what we find. And this is only one example.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

What would an archaeologist need with the geologic column?

Not much, but I wasn't talking about the "geologic column." I was talking about the "theoretical construct."

You have implied in previous posts that the "geologic column" is just a theory, a construct.

Way to sidestep the issue...yet again.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by cur_deus_homo

Not much, but I wasn't talking about the "geologic column."

It sure sounded like you were.

I was talking about the "theoretical construct."

I defined the geologic column as a theoretical construct in which the Earth's strata are dated by geologic timescales. You then said that archaeologists use the same theoretical construct. If that isn't what you meant, then perhaps you could have been more clear.

You have implied in previous posts that the "geologic column" is just a theory, a construct.

If it'll make you happy, I'll come right out and say it -- the geologic column is a fraud.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I defined the geologic column as a theoretical construct in which the Earth's strata are dated by geologic timescales. You then said that archaeologists use the same theoretical construct. Don't try to tell me you weren't talking about the geologic column. I might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.. More correctly the geologic column is a teaching tool or mnemonic device to help people understand relationships between time periods.

It's no more "real" than those diagrams of the dispensations in some bibles, or the posters of a rain forest showing 150 different species all within 25 feet of each other...

[Aussie Thinker]

Jack,

The “fraudulence” of the geological column seem to be the cornerstone of your rejection of evolution (aside of course from your belief in the Literal Bible).

I don’t quite understand why you reject it so completely.

The column was worked out BEFORE Darwin came up with evolutionary theory.

The column has been tried tested and found to ALWAYS line up where expected.

Where the column is interrupted or split or turned sideways etc.. the geological reason is always clear.

The column has been mined intact in order in at least 29 deep drilling sites around the world.

The layers of the column have been tested for age by several methods which all concur. The Ages always line up within the column from oldest to newest.

The overwhelming majority of EXPERTS and scientist within relevant field accept the column.

[cur_deus_homo]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I defined the geologic column as a theoretical construct in which the Earth's strata are dated by geologic timescales. You then said that archaeologists use the same theoretical construct. If that isn't what you meant, then perhaps you could have been more clear.

I really am flabergasted by your incessant need for everyone else to spell out what they mean (when it should be obvious), and then when you're confronted and asked to clarify what you mean you hide behind more questions and one-liners.

Look, my point remains. Archeology, yes even the archeology used to unearth evidence which confirms much of biblical history, uses the same idea that geology does, namely that the newer "stuff" is nearer the surface and the older "stuff" is deeper down in the strata. I'm sure you're more than willing to accept this idea when (and if) you read something by Albright, let's say, but then when geologists use the same idea you think they perpetrate fraud.

Is this a fair characterization of your view?

Yes or no.

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Considering that it has nothing to do with history, yeah, I do.

By historical I meant concerning things that had happened in the past.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
How?

Same way that two people looking very similar indicates that they are related.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Would it be fair to say that any evidence for evolution could be seen as evidence against creation?

Not necessarily. Since a Creator could have done anything he wanted, technically everything could be seen as having been caused by a Creator.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What sort of similarities?

Heres one example:
http://hunter.apana.org.au/~gallae/hecate/images/drawings/embryos.gif

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What sort of similarities? And are similarities automatically indicative of evolution?

Anatomical, physiological, biochemical, genetic. They are indicitive of relatedness, which supports the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What exactly is the source of the diversity of life?

Changes in the allele frequencies of populations due to natural selection.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Dude, that's a no-brainer. If an animal isn't suited to its habitat, it's going to move somewhere else or die.

Which is basically what evolution says, except it adds adapt as a third option.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Okay, but you spoke of its unifying power. What exactly does it unify?

It basically provides a common base for all the branches of biology.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What, forelimbs have bones in them? I don't see how that serves as evidence for evolution.

This picture does a better job of trying to show what I was getting at:
http://www.cord.edu/faculty/landa/courses/b315f99/sessions/phylogeny/limb.jpg

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
How do commonalities indicate that they're related? Maybe they just had the same designer.

Again, a designer could have done anything he wanted to. The lack of evidence supporting the existance of a designer hurts that interpretation considerably though.

In a way, that is kind of what evolution says. They started out from the same design (common ancestor) and that design changed as the species adapted.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Let me give you an example. If the flood story is true, we should expect to find millions of dead things buried in the rock. This is exactly what we find. And this is only one example.

Yes, and a homologous fossil record, which we don't find.

What are some other examples?

[aharvey]

Was it something I said? I signed onto this list expressly to interact with some creationists directly, but after only about a dozen posts I think they’ve stopped talking to me (well, okay, although he’s got 36 posts in my previous thread, One Eyed Jack never actually replied to anything I said in any of my posts, so I guess he technically couldn’t have stopped talking to me.).
So before I leave this potentially expiring thread, I’d like to summarize the bits relevant to my original question:

1. Creationists accept the reality of evolution (i.e., descent with modification), the primary mechanisms of evolution (e.g., natural selection, genetic drift, etc.), and the most basic outcome expected by evolutionary biologists, namely that it can lead to both spatial and temporal variation within populations.
2. Creationists also accept that the same evolutionary processes that lead to differentiation within a species can also lead to the evolution of different species, and cause lineages to evolve to different enough states that taxonomists would place them in different genera.
3. Creationists do reject the hypothesis that all life originated in this fashion from a single ancestor, instead arguing that God created a number of life forms separately and independent of each other (i.e., “biblical kinds”).
4. I think we’d all agree that the nature of these proposed processes (descent with modification over long periods of time vs. separate and independent creation of many fully formed taxa) are profoundly different!
5. As profoundly different as these processes are, you’d think that it would be easy to distinguish patterns of similarity and difference caused by descent with modification from patterns of similarity and difference caused by special creation. However, it seems clear that creationists can offer no nonarbitrary way to recognize “biblical kinds.”

This leads me to what I’m sure will be an unpopular conclusion: if creationists accept the reality, the mechanisms, and the outcomes of evolutionary theory, but only up to some point that is specified neither by evolutionary theory nor by the objecting creationists themselves, then it is the obligation of creationists to demonstrate when and why the theory of evolution no longer applies – it is not up to evolutionary biologists to demonstrate that the theory applies to every possible scenario.

Not that I wouldn't love to try; there are lots of unanswered questions, thankfully, otherwise I'd have nothing to study! But to reject a theory until every possible scenario has been verified turns the entire process of scientific inquiry on its head; we use theories to help us learn more effectively about the world around us, we don't learn everything there is to know and then build a theory to summarize a completed task!

[cur_deus_homo]

You provided a fair summary.

Originally posted by aharvey

it is the obligation of creationists to demonstrate when and why the theory of evolution no longer applies – it is not up to evolutionary biologists to demonstrate that the theory applies to every possible scenario

And they do, time and time again. It "no longer applies" when it leads to "contradicitons" with their own theological agendas and biblical hermeneutics. That, of course, has little, if anything, to do with science.

As you have seen on this site there are different kinds of creationists, and they all (me included) draw the line somewhere. Some "creationists" find no problem with biological evolution or even abiogenesis (me). Others draw the line at Noah's ark. I use the term "creationist" to refer to myself reluctantly because it conjures up so many stereotypical connotations of the bad science "done" or referred to by people who are YECs and try to incorporate all the stuff about Arks and Floods and Eden and blah, blah, blah into their own brand of pseudoscience. Nevertheless, I believe God created, thus I am a "creationist."

[Yorzhik]

From the first post, I responded:

1: If a few changes (that might make the classification "virtually identical") has no evolutionary pathway to both from a common ancestor, then that is the point I would reject an evolutionary explaination.

In answer to question 2: because that is a point (not the only one to consider, but the first one I think of) where science has filled a gap in knowledge required to determine the viability of the ToE.

In answer to question 3: At this point I wouldn't have an answer until we moved past the current discussion of points 1 and 2, to another one that discussed possible alternative explainations. We shouldn't even consider this until we are done with points 1 and 2.

In answer to question 4: That would depend on the conclusion of what was discussed on point 3.

And in response to your most recent post:
it is the obligation of creationists to demonstrate when and why the theory of evolution no longer applies
When evolution claims that newly created information is added to an organism's DNA. Because chemical processes cannot create information.

At this point, one only has to show that more information is in a higher form than a lower form. Then it is the obligation of evolutionist to demonstrate how the theory of evolution can account for newly created information from an undirected chemical process.

[Jukia]

What is it that you mean by "information"?

[ShadowMaid]

A rule of thumb definition: An instruction that when communicated is properly understood. (This is Yorzhik)

[aharvey]

I'm about to leave for a conference for several days, but I did want to make a couple quick comments here:

Originally posted by Yorzhik

From the first post, I responded:

1: If a few changes (that might make the classification "virtually identical") has no evolutionary pathway to both from a common ancestor, then that is the point I would reject an evolutionary explaination.

While this reply is technically true, it's not clear to me how one would decide that there is no evolutionary pathway to a common ancestor. In fact, I would argue that this doesn't even answer the question, it just restates the question! (See how tricky this can be?) would depend on the conclusion of what was discussed on point 3.

Originally posted by Yorzhik

And in response to your most recent post:

When evolution claims that newly created information is added to an organism's DNA. Because chemical processes cannot create information.

At this point, one only has to show that more information is in a higher form than a lower form. Then it is the obligation of evolutionist to demonstrate how the theory of evolution can account for newly created information from an undirected chemical process.

Sorry, you've lost me here, at least you're talking about biological objects in a way that may make sense to a computer programmer but is fundamentally different from the way biologists discuss them. So this may not be addressing your concern, but if you look at the size of the genomes of, say, bacteria through mammals, you see a reasonably predictable increase in the number of base pairs, the number of genes, the average number of base pairs per gene, and in the number of chromosomes. There are several very well known mechanisms by which these increases can occur (I would say the least well understood is the relationship between base pairs per gene). If you duplicate a chromosome, for example, you've just doubled the number of base pairs contributed to the total genome by that original chromosome; since they're the same chromosome, there is no essential reason the new copy would do anything new or damaging to the organism, but now mutation, followed by natural selection, can occur independently on each copy. And voila! You've just increased the potential information content of the genome.

And don't forget, chromosomal duplication is not the only way to do this!

Gotta go! See y'all next week!

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by aharvey

I'm about to leave for a conference for several days, but I did want to make a couple quick comments here:



While this reply is technically true, it's not clear to me how one would decide that there is no evolutionary pathway to a common ancestor. In fact, I would argue that this doesn't even answer the question, it just restates the question! (See how tricky this can be?)
Right, I agree. This doesn't answer the question because we don't have enough information to answer it. Until we understand how DNA works, the line that evolution cannot cross will be too wide and transparent for anyone to discuss much.

Sorry, you've lost me here, at least you're talking about biological objects in a way that may make sense to a computer programmer but is fundamentally different from the way biologists discuss them. So this may not be addressing your concern, but if you look at the size of the genomes of, say, bacteria through mammals, you see a reasonably predictable increase in the number of base pairs, the number of genes, the average number of base pairs per gene, and in the number of chromosomes. There are several very well known mechanisms by which these increases can occur (I would say the least well understood is the relationship between base pairs per gene). If you duplicate a chromosome, for example, you've just doubled the number of base pairs contributed to the total genome by that original chromosome; since they're the same chromosome, there is no essential reason the new copy would do anything new or damaging to the organism, but now mutation, followed by natural selection, can occur independently on each copy. And voila! You've just increased the potential information content of the genome.

And don't forget, chromosomal duplication is not the only way to do this!

Gotta go! See y'all next week!
Just a side note, have you noticed that most degreed anti-evolutionists tend to be engineers?

On to your comment. Let's use the ever popular computer code example. If mutations occur that change the code, it very well may not break the program. In fact, making a double copy of the code may not break the code. But if you want to add a new function through mutation, you cannot just mutate anything. Sure, you can mutate variables to existing functions, but to add information you have to place instructions in the system that not only can be understood by the receiving process, but it must be understood by the initiating process as well. This kind of directing, where an initiating process understands the data/instructions and the receiving process understands the same data/instructions, cannot be accomplished in the same way that mutations occur in the programming of DNA. Undirected chemical reactions just don't that.

You might say, "undirected chemical reactions just get lucky." And you can go off and keep believing that if you want to. Just don't call it science.

[Jukia]

Yorzhik: I thought there was a pretty good understanding of the way DNA works, am I wrong?

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Jukia

Yorzhik: I thought there was a pretty good understanding of the way DNA works, am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong. We've barely scratched the surface on all the secrets DNA holds.

I'm willing for you to claim we have a rather complete knowledge of DNA, though, as I haven't sited any sources.

[Jukia]

I'm not sure that we are not saying the same thing. My understanding was that we had a pretty good basic knowledge of DNA---->RNA---->ribosome---->protein. Am I correct?
Not disputing the fact that there is lots left to learn.

[Yorzhik]

I'll agree with that. We have a good basic knowledge. It's the details that we have reletively few of.

[Jukia]

Yorzhik: Actually you may be incorrect on that. One of my kids is a PhD candidate in genetics--there are a myriad of details that we know about and probably still more that we are uncovering as time goes on.

What we do know seems to fit with the basic evoutionary ideas we also have. Do you agree with this last statement?

[Yorzhik]

We know a myriad of details, but it's nothing compared to the details we've yet to uncover.

What we do know seems to fit with the basic evoutionary ideas we also have. Do you agree with this last statement?
Yes, if you want to say that evolution is change over time. No, if you want to say that evolution, for example, had single-cell organisms turn into multi-cell organisms (and that's what I'm thinking about when I discuss this). What is your definition of evolution today?

What we know is there is a great amount of information in DNA, and evolution relies on pure chemical processes that have no mechanism to create information.

[Jukia]

Someone needs to explain to me what is meant by "information" and why the process of evolution in living organisms cannot work by the addition of information.
And is your basic problem the jump from uni-cellular to multi-cellular?

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

Just a side note, have you noticed that most degreed anti-evolutionists tend to be engineers?

Yes I have, and it's hardly surprising. The more firsthand experience a scientist has with actual plants, animals, fungi, and/or bacteria, the harder it would be to overlook the signs of common origin, adaptation, and differentiation. In contrast, engineers and computer scientists have experience, not with actual living organisms, but with devices and programs. This leaves them somewhat more vulnerable to forgetting that analogies between DNA and computer code are just that, analogies. And (speaking as someone with a fair bit of programming experience) a pretty lame analogy at that, and certainly no basis for concluding that "if software can't work this way, then neither can DNA." Put simply, life doesn't have the restrictions of machine code!

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Jukia

Someone needs to explain to me what is meant by "information" and why the process of evolution in living organisms cannot work by the addition of information.
And is your basic problem the jump from uni-cellular to multi-cellular?
A rule of thumb definition: An instruction that when communicated is properly understood.

Here is an example as has been mentioned by others and myself here on TOL: The eye has a group of cells that send an electrochemical signal down the optic nerve. Those signals have to be processed/translated/decoded (or whatever you want to call it) by a program in the brain. Chemicals *can* fall together to make a chemical reaction (and let's say they can even be put together to create a reaction similar to what the cells in the eye do). However, they CANNOT fall together to create a program that turns electrochemical signals into a picture. Do you see the difference?

And no, my problem with evolution is not only the "jump" from uni-cellular to multi-cellular life. It just happens to be the definable layer I thought of at the time. But you do realize that more programs (read: more information) is required to run a multi-cell system than a uni-cell system, don't you?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

A rule of thumb definition: An instruction that when communicated is properly understood.

Here is an example as has been mentioned by others and myself here on TOL: The eye has a group of cells that send an electrochemical signal down the optic nerve. Those signals have to be processed/translated/decoded (or whatever you want to call it) by a program in the brain. Chemicals *can* fall together to make a chemical reaction (and let's say they can even be put together to create a reaction similar to what the cells in the eye do). However, they CANNOT fall together to create a program that turns electrochemical signals into a picture. Do you see the difference?Your example sounds a bit like the folks who claimed that humans would never fly prior to the Wright brothers little demonstration a hundred years ago...

Just because we cannot map a model for how something occurs at the present hour and present state of scientific knowledge is not necessarily a good reason to presume that something "cannot" happen. Looking at the nerve/brain interface as a form of computing system your proposed program does happen scores of billions of times per day in the optic nerve and brain of every mammal on the planet.

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by aharvey

Yes I have, and it's hardly surprising. The more firsthand experience a scientist has with actual plants, animals, fungi, and/or bacteria, the harder it would be to overlook the signs of common origin, adaptation, and differentiation.

I'm just guessing, but when I think about it, the real reasons degreed anti-evolutionists tend to be engineers is because a) engineers don't have to take classes that require obeisance to evolution to get their degrees, and b) they don't lose their jobs if they are anti-evolution, and c) engineers and programmers need to understand the mechanism of how something works to be comfortable with a process. Mutations plus natural selection isn't a mechanism that works, and all the other proposed mechanisms seem to be unexplainable. Perhaps you could explain what mechanisms exists beside mutation and natural selection that change DNA so it can gain new functions.

In contrast, engineers and computer scientists have experience, not with actual living organisms, but with devices and programs. This leaves them somewhat more vulnerable to forgetting that analogies between DNA and computer code are just that, analogies. And (speaking as someone with a fair bit of programming experience) a pretty lame analogy at that, and certainly no basis for concluding that "if software can't work this way, then neither can DNA." Put simply, life doesn't have the restrictions of machine code!
I'd say the problem is just the opposite. The reason I say that is because you made a mistake in your quote here. You said programmers/engineers say, "if software can't work this way, then neither can DNA." when nothing can be further from the truth. The DNA is nothing but a program. Just because, as you admit here, our machines are primitive compared to a cell, does not mean that fundementally DNA is more than a program.

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Zakath

Your example sounds a bit like the folks who claimed that humans would never fly prior to the Wright brothers little demonstration a hundred years ago...
I don't understand what you are saying I'm saying cannot be done. Blind chemical processes creating a program? If so, your analogy is backwards. In the Wrights time, as science progressed, they became more and more sure that flight was possible, despite what conventional wisdom said. Likewise, todays conventional wisdom says that blind chemical processes just might be able to create information - however, as science moves forward we find this less and less likely.

Just because we cannot map a model for how something occurs at the present hour and present state of scientific knowledge is not necessarily a good reason to presume that something "cannot" happen.
How about perpetual motion machines? Information is similar.

Looking at the nerve/brain interface as a form of computing system your proposed program does happen scores of billions of times per day in the optic nerve and brain of every mammal on the planet.
Nice circular argument. Zak, please, you're better than that.

[Jukia]

Information is similar to perpertual motion machines?