Help support TMP


"Darwin Day" Topic


1657 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Animals Plus Board

Back to the Science Plus Board



30,165 hits since 2 Feb 2009
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP02 Feb 2009 7:48 a.m. PST

In 10 days it will be 200 years since Darwin was born and 150 sice he published The origin of speices.

I think most universities around the world will mark the day.
I know the univeristy of Oslo will and I will probebly go up there and take look at what they will do.

CLDISME Inactive Member02 Feb 2009 8:21 a.m. PST

I demand that Carl Linnaeus should have a day, too!

grin

Streitax02 Feb 2009 9:21 a.m. PST

We shall offer the burning of Darwin at the stake (in effigy) in the Lounge rec area followed by a viewing of Planet of the Apes.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP02 Feb 2009 10:20 a.m. PST

In Pennsylvania, it will be a 2 hour delay for schools.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP02 Feb 2009 12:48 p.m. PST

You also have Evolution Sunday, which is the closest sunday to the 12th, were churches around the states celebrate Darwin and Evolution

CLDISME Inactive Member02 Feb 2009 1:20 p.m. PST

You also have Evolution Sunday, which is the closest sunday to the 12th, were (sic) churches around the states celebrate Darwin and Evolution.

Never heard of it and I've lived in the US all my life. I think the reason I have never heard of it is because it conflicts with President's Day festivities (President's Day has a bigger marketing budget).

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP02 Feb 2009 1:29 p.m. PST

Evolution sunday(now evolution weekend, to bring in other faiths) is only 3 years old. So no wonder you havn't heard of it.
Darwin day has been celebrated since 1980, mostly in universitis

flyfishtasmania Inactive Member02 Feb 2009 2:24 p.m. PST

This thread has filled me with wonder at the quality of the west's universities :)

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP02 Feb 2009 2:47 p.m. PST

I don't know, I don't see why one shouldn't celebrate a man (to gether with Wallace) that helped brig about modern biology as we know it.
With out evlolution though Natural selection, nothing in bology makes sense with it, it makes perfect sense.

But then we should also have a Newton day

CLDISME Inactive Member02 Feb 2009 8:01 p.m. PST

Every day is a Newton day!

link

recon3502 Feb 2009 8:04 p.m. PST

I ate a sleeve of those last night. No milk though. Bummer…

myrm1103 Feb 2009 4:20 a.m. PST

Strangely enough Darwin-mania is going to be substantial here in Cambridge.

jpattern203 Feb 2009 11:12 a.m. PST

This thread has filled me with wonder at the quality of the west's universities :)
As opposed to, what, creationism? Intelligent design?

CLDISME Inactive Member03 Feb 2009 11:45 a.m. PST

jpattern2 –

I took flyfishtasmania's comment to mean "Why are universities and colleges wasting their time with meaningless celebrations when research, teaching, and learning should be top priority?"

Interesting that we had two different reactions/assumptions from the same comment.

Whatisitgood4atwork03 Feb 2009 6:25 p.m. PST

Darwin Sunday? Outrageous!

I do not believe there is any such thing as Sunday and insist everyone else does not too.

flyfishtasmania Inactive Member04 Feb 2009 3:48 a.m. PST

Actually I was marvelling at the unorthodox spelling, and the burning in effigy!

Ghecko14 Feb 2009 2:23 p.m. PST

The human brain has been described as probably the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe.

To believe that such a thing could have evolved via the the unguided and random proceses of time and chance is simply irrational.

I for one will lament what beliefs his theory led to and where they have taken mankind in the last 200 years.

Trevor

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP15 Feb 2009 5:52 a.m. PST

It's unguided yes, random no, infact evolution is anything but random.

And where have evolution taken mankind the last 150 years.
Modern biology, in which modern medicin is part is totaly based on it, every time a doctor takes a culture it's based on what we know about evolution.

Evolution is a fundemantal fact of life, and the world, just as gravity is.

As for the human brain, we have a very god understanding of how it evolved and why it evolved into what it is today

crhkrebs Inactive Member15 Feb 2009 6:46 a.m. PST

I for one will lament what beliefs his theory led to and where they have taken mankind in the last 200 years.

You are kidding right? Everything that has gone wrong with the planet in the last 200 years should be laid at Darwin's feet?

How about this?:

I for one will lament what consequences Newton's theory of Gravitation led to and where they have taken mankind in the last 200 years.

You know, all those plane crashes and people falling off of ladders and stuff.

Ralph

Ghecko15 Feb 2009 10:54 p.m. PST

Its "unguided" but not "random"? Now that's plain stupid.

What evidence would convince you that anything has been intelligently designed, either by human beings or by some other intelligence?

Consider the SETI project: The whole SETI project is based around discovering a radio signal from outer space that could be interpreted as evidence for an intelligent message sender. So, what criteria do they use?

The answer is quite simple: the SETI project is looking for a radio signal from outer space that is neither random background noise nor from a known source, either human or otherwise. What they are looking for is a signal from outer space with non-random information encoded in it; something deliberate. Such a deliberate signal if found would be interpreted as having come from an intelligent source.

So, suppose we are wandering around a forest, we look down, and find a stone arrowhead. I doubt of anyone reading this would believe that anything but a human being crafted such an arrowhead. Why? Simply because no known natural process or any other creature except a human being is known to craft arrowheads. Encoded in the arrowhead's simple design is the fact that it was thought about and deliberately designed and crafted for a particular purpose. It is deliberate and non-random. Like a deliberate, non-random radio signal from outer space, the arrowhead becomes good evidence that there was an intelligent designer behind it.

But I ask, what about the human being who found it?

For example: The human brain has been described as probably the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe. Its mere 1.5 kg (about 3 pounds) contains at least 2,500 million neurons; if you stretched them all out and laid them end to end, it would come to about 75 km (about 45 miles) worth; the brain's information processing capabilities are absolutely staggering.

Then there is the intricate design complexities shown in the heart, lungs, blood, kidneys, liver, eyes, ears, nose, stomach and intestines, muscles, skeleton, skin, etc, etc, etc. Then there is the complexity of the cell including its DNA/RNA mechanisms, etc; you can store all the DNA information to replicate the entire world's population of over 6 billion people in a volume of less than half an aspirin!

I ask then: Is it rational to believe that something as simple and basic as a stone arrowhead be declared to be the product of an intelligent designer, but the staggeringly complex human being who found it be declared to be just a product of time and chance?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, that sort of reasoning I find simply irrational. Just like saying its "unguided" but not "random".

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP16 Feb 2009 3:50 a.m. PST

It simply shows you lack of understanding about evolution, as unguided but not random is very easy to understand.

Evolution dosn't have a plan, it's forced forward by natural selection, by many very small steps.

Yes if you expect the human brain to just pop into existance from nothing it looks very "designed" but if you look at the evolution you'll se how the brain slowly got more and more complex, the diffrence between the brain of a beetle and human are vast, but the diffrence between a chimp brain and human brain is much much much less, and even less if you look at our ancestors like homo erectus.
We see a clear path for brain from simple fish, to amphibians-reptiles-mammal, we also see how evolution inside the mammal class evolves more and more complex brains, we see it very clearly in the order of primates, with the brain getting bigger and bigger and more complex as it nears humans.

And remember humans aren't the end product of evolution we are all just trasional animals on it's way to a new species

Ghecko16 Feb 2009 9:13 p.m. PST

Your understanding of what "evolution" is or is not is typically naive to say the least.

Microbes becoming microbes becoming microbes becoming microbes is not nor ever has been "evolution"; now, a microbe becoming a mult-celled organism – that would clearly be "evolution" at work.

So, I think you need to get off your butt and do some research – stop reading the fairy tales in the reader's digest or National Geographic or Sunday papers or whatever for your info – get into the scientific journals and see what real scientists say.

If "evolution" is so solid, proven and true as you suggest, then you should have no difficulty at all in finding and supplying the following information for us all:

Firstly, how was it exactly that non-living chemicals formed a living reproducing cell? Please save us all from the usual rhetoric or "just so" stories; just give us the real facts.

And while you are at it: How exactly was it that a single celled organism became a multi-celled organism? The jump is from one cell to many thousands with nothing in between.

The answer to that question should be enlightening to us all…

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP17 Feb 2009 5:23 a.m. PST

Normal creasionist miss understanding.

Evolution says nothing about how life got started only how life evolved once it had allready started.
The field you are looking for is Abiogenesis
This video shows how life might have started
link

This one explanes the theory of evolution
link

About the change from unicellular to Multicellular, there are sevral Hypotheses, I can say that one is that two diffrent species got into a symbiotic relation ship, as time went by that would end up beeing dependent on each other. Eventually leading to their genomes being incorporated into one, multicellular, organism. Each respective organism would become a separate lineage of differentiated cells within the newly created species.

Ghecko17 Feb 2009 6:29 p.m. PST

Sigh. No abiogenesis = no life at all = no biological evolution. Surely even you can see that.

I notice that your two references are to articles on Youtube; now there's a solid, reliable scientific source of reference if I must say so. I mean are you serious? What next – the Sunday papers?

Get serious: What reputable scientific evidence can you offer?

And as usual with evolutionary theory discussions we see words bandied around like "might". That usually means there is also a "might not". Have you never asked why they never say "this IS exactly how it happened"?

You propose: "…two diffrent species got into a symbiotic relation ship, as time went by that would end up being dependent on each other. Eventually leading to their genomes being incorporated into one, multicellular, organism"

This is exactly what I mean – how exactly?

Clearly these thoughts are just some of your idle musings. Do you have any reasonable scientific evidence to back your thoughts up? If not, then you need to go off and do some homework.

What I'm saying is this: Do you have any reputable evidence to show how two genomes can "incorporate into one" (whatever that means exactly)? Is this physio-chemically possible? Is it genetically feasible? Would it lead to an improved organism or would it cause a catastrophic genetic disaster destroying the organism? Remember, scientific study has shown that even the most minor mutation can cause major problems for an organism; here you suggest some sort of major mutation event.

It should be obvious to you that I have done a lot of study into the scientific case for both sides of the argument; my conclusion was that evolution, when you want the details, is almost invariably bankrupt; lots of theories, just-so-stories and guesses – but no solid scientific evidence, especially when it comes to abiogenesis.

Remember: One who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; one who does not ask a question remains a fool forever.

Question evolution's fine details and be prepared for a surprise.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP18 Feb 2009 7:19 a.m. PST

No, I don't see that you have done alot of study, as you only repeat creasonist propagnda, amybody looking at the vast vast vast vast evidence for evolution with non bible glasses will see it for what it is, a fundamental truth of the universe just like physisics.

And just becasue people are smarter then you and makes videos on youtube dosn't mean they are not right. Youtube has lots and lots of highly educated and ludicisly smart people debunking creationist bull.

Just because I can't answer everyquestion about evolution dosn't mean nobody els can

When someone disproves your veiw, you simply nitpick that they are on youtube and therefore can't be right,

Spend a few weeks on youtube and watch videoes from thuderf00t, adromedaswake, donexodus, aronra and many other.
Evolution is a fact, if you can't cope with that, well then it's your problem, but remember you can probebly thank other peoples understanding of evolution though natural selection that you are alive today

Ghecko18 Feb 2009 3:06 p.m. PST

Evolutionist's Standard Tactic Number 1:
If you can't answer the argument, attack the person instead.

Sadly it appears that's where you're going.

Question: How open is your mind on the subject? Have you ever looked at the considerable amount of material scientifically debunking virtually all of the evoltionary spin (eg, especially in the area of abiogenesis) and then weighed it up? I must say that I suspect not.

You say "Evolution is a fact…"; this statement is a statement of belief.

For example, when you dig up a fossil, it doesn't have a tag on it saying how it got there, etc. It is a fact; pure and simple; a piece of evidence. To answer how it got there you have to interpret it, and how you do that depends on your beliefs.

Take the Piltdown Man hoax. They so badly wanted to find an ape-man fossil to fit their beliefs that when a suitable "fossil" came along, they didn't even question it; it didn't make sense finding it where they did but hell it's an "ape-man"; we'll take it! They didn't even bother to scientifically test it; human skull; ape jaw; that's all they needed; it's all they wanted.

So, into the textbooks it went a "proof" of evolution.

Did they get their beliefs from the fossils; or did they have the belief first and went out looking for the fossil evidence to back their beliefs?

Of course, we all know what happened when good empirical science was finally applied to it decades later – oops – a hoax, and not even a good one at that; and so it was discretely removed from the textbooks. Yet it was used as a proof of evolutionary dogma for decades (while they continually refused to let people scientifically test it).

And so it is with a lot of evolutionary doctrine; apply the blowtorch of good empirical science to it and it invariably fails, eg, abiogenesis.

I can only suggest that you open your mind a little and take a look at the other side of the argument and weigh it up first before you decide to take the path of attacking the person.

I have enjoyed these discussions so far but if you don't wish to continue that's fine.

Cheers

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP19 Feb 2009 2:49 a.m. PST

Piltdown Man wasn't an atept to fake proof of evolution, it was an atempt to fake that humans came from europe, get your facts staight. Also as we uncoverd more and more fossils in Africa we learned that Piltdown Man was an anomely, and was removed from the family tree long before the people behind it came forward.
Creationis tactic nr 1, talk about stuff science has left behind years ago, it's like saying the current atomic theory is bad becasue the old greek theroy about 5 elements was wrong.

And evolution is a fact becasue we have seen it, simple as that.

And heres TREE articals about the evoultion of mulicells

link

link

link

I have taken a look at the other side, and it's painfull as it's total stupid, no agrument any creationst has come with, hasn't allready been disproved 10000000 times.

crhkrebs Inactive Member19 Feb 2009 6:33 a.m. PST

I have enjoyed these discussions so far but if you don't wish to continue that's fine.

Trevor I hope that is an invite to jump in. You will have to excuse me, but I do see the typical "Intelligent Design" propaganda evident in your writing.

Its "unguided" but not "random"? Now that's plain stupid.

No, sorry. Evolution is propelled by mutation. DNA is susceptible to the randomly falling radiation we find ourselves exposed to (to use only one mutagenic source for discussion). The DNA changes in response to this random radiation. But the effects of these changes are NOT random. Some cells are more prone to damage than others, that is why squamous cell carcinoma has a different survival rate than malignant melanoma. The "expression" of the changes brought on by any mutations are variable.
95% of our DNA is "junk" or filler, intragenic DNA. A mutation here will have little or no effect. Only 5% or so of our contains genes. A mutation here will likely be deleterious. Only a few mutated genes will be viable. These genes may or may not express themselves phenotypically. Do you begin to see how this is NOT a random process?
These viable mutations MAY express themselves in an altered phenotype that is usually less successful at adapting than non mutated organisms. However, in some cases these new phenotypes may make the organism more adaptable to it's environment. Therefore more offspring will be had every generation from this mutant organism, spreading the new mutated genes throughout the population. This is what Darwin meant by "Natural selection". It is not "guided", it is NOT random and it is certainly not intelligently designed! For a good example of this look at the many studies of Darwin's Finches in the Galapagos Islands.


So, suppose we are wandering around a forest, we look down, and find a stone arrowhead. I doubt of anyone reading this would believe that anything but a human being crafted such an arrowhead.

Very poor analogy! Similar to the nonsense brought up by the defense in the Dover, PA Evolution vs. Intelligent Design trial recently. There, the example was walking down a beach and seeing the words, "John loves Mary" scrawled in the sand. How could that be the result of "random environmental changes"? The problem is that words, and letters and arrowheads are obviously human byproducts. We know of the use of letters and arrowheads and we have seen them made by other humans. They are artificial products of our minds and hands.
See the transcript of the Dover trial for an excellent excoriation of this line of thought by the prosecution witnesses (University Biology professors). It is available on the internet.

The human brain has been described as probably the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe.

Given the extent of our knowledge of everything of complexity within the universe, I can't think of anyone who would state something so meaningless and hyperbolic.

I ask then: Is it rational to believe that something as simple and basic as a stone arrowhead be declared to be the product of an intelligent designer, but the staggeringly complex human being who found it be declared to be just a product of time and chance?

This is what is known in philosophy, as the "Argument from Ignorance". I'll invite you to look that up yourself. May I suggest:

talkorigins.org/indexcc

I also suggest that you pick up Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker" which is an excoriation of the concept of "Irreducible Complexity", such as found in Michael Behe's now discredited "Darwin's Black Box". I assume that is what you are getting at.


Microbes becoming microbes becoming microbes becoming microbes is not nor ever has been "evolution"; now, a microbe becoming a mult-celled organism that would clearly be "evolution" at work.

Wrong. Microbes, changing into other species of microbes, is EXACTLY what evolution is.

If "evolution" is so solid, proven and true as you suggest, then you should have no difficulty at all in finding and supplying the following information for us all: Firstly, how was it exactly that non-living chemicals formed a living reproducing cell?

Hmmmmm…….That is like asking a physicist, "So if the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics is true, then why is acceleration due to gravity 9.8 m/sec/sec? It indicates an ignorance of the concepts that the questioner is trying to link.
Abiogenesis, the origin of life from non living materials is NOT the same as evolution, which is the change of living organisms over time.

You say "Evolution is a fact…"; this statement is a statement of belief.

It is a fact that all organisms change over time. Nothing alive now was alive 50 million years ago, nothing alive 50 million years ago was alive 100 million years ago, etc. etc. This fact was already known in the 1800's. However Darwin (and Wallace) were the first to produce a mechanism to explain HOW this could happen. Evolution wasn't "Invented" by Darwin anymore than gravity was "Invented" by Newton. Evolution and Gravity were there the whole time. These men simply were the first to offer the explanation for the phenomenon. BTW, both theories are still supported by the data.

Do you have any reputable evidence to show how two genomes can "incorporate into one" (whatever that means exactly)? Is this physio-chemically possible? Is it genetically feasible?

Yes I do.
1) Fertilization to produce an embryo. That's how you and I got here! ;^)
2) Viral reproduction. That's how you get the flu.
3) Recombinant DNA #1. Bacteriological microsomal exchange. How bacteria change and adapt over time. That's how you get penicillin resistant Streptococcus.
4) Recombinant DNA #2. Retroviral replication. That's how you get recurrent cold sores after only 1 exposure.
5) Recombinant DNA #3. Retroviral bioengineering #1. That's how some cancer therapies work. That's how diabetics stay alive due to how insulin is now made. That's how Human Growth Hormone is made. Etc. etc.
6) Recombinant DNA #4. Retroviral bioengineering #2. Transgenic foods. That's what you buy in the grocery store (an estimated 60-80% of the time). BTW, have you seen/tasted Broccolflower?

As to your question, "Is this physio-chemically possible? Yes it is. Get a typical biology textbook and look up "restriction enzymes" and "ligases". This doesn't prove or disprove evolution, but you did ask. The methods explained above, all happen naturally too.

Have you ever looked at the considerable amount of material scientifically debunking virtually all of the evoltionary spin (eg, especially in the area of abiogenesis) and then weighed it up? I must say that I suspect not.

I haven't seen any either. Please enlighten us. Kindly submit an example of such research published in a reputable, peer reviewed, refereed scientific journal for our elucidation.

Question evolution's fine details and be prepared for a surprise.

Well, I'm not holding my breath.

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP19 Feb 2009 7:25 a.m. PST

thanks to Ralph, as usual, someone says it alot better then I could.

I would also ad that just because we don't know EVERYTNING about evolution, dosn't mean evolution is wrong because evolution has and always will be there even if we never desoverd it, it dosn't live because of us, it just is.

So what if the evolution from single cell to multi cell isn't 100% documented, it still dosn't disprove evolution.

crhkrebs Inactive Member19 Feb 2009 11:37 a.m. PST

I would also ad that just because we don't know EVERYTNING about evolution, doesn't mean evolution is wrong……

Well, that is a typical tactic of the ID crowd. Attack the "gaps" in the knowledge and therefore condemn everything you disagree with. Of course the ID crowd does zero, nada, zilch research themselves to support their own arguments, they just attack other research and findings.

For example, Michael Behe has been published many times in peer reviewed journals and has contributed to biology with his study of the bacterial flagellum. He is also deeply religious and also supports ID. How many of his publications actually support his ID convictions?

Zero.

For his ID stuff, he bypasses the traditional scientific process and writes a book for the lay public, Darwin's Black Box. Doesn't that seem odd?

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP19 Feb 2009 11:57 a.m. PST

Jupp, the attack on the gaps, has a spesific name, that I won't mention as it will only bring the descussion to a new arena that is way of the core of the mater.

I've seen the whole two hour lecutre from Keneth Miller about the dover trial, and EVERY "evidence" for ID was disproven with EASE by the real scientist

Ghecko19 Feb 2009 4:41 p.m. PST

Help! I've been hijacked!

Where did I originally start? Right at the start: with abiogenesis…THE starting point of biological evolution.

No abiogenesis = no cell = nothing to evolve biologically = no evolution. Obviously some here are having a liitle difficulty in grasping this concept.

I ask: Why do evolutionists ALWAYS skip this issue (abiogenesis) and start with life already existing? You always argue about the "how's" of the evolutionary progression, but never the "how it came to be"; the origin.

I was wondering how long it would be before I was directed to the "Talk Origins" site: Yes gentlemen, I have read many articles on this site over the years, probably more than anyone here; some are good (though misleading); some a little out of date; some just plain wrong. Question: Is it peer reviewed as you demand of my sources? Sadly, no. I too could direct you to many creationist sites scientifically debunking what the evolutionist sites say…and we continue to go around and around in circles… same old arguments… you and I hear them every time we discuss creation/evolution.

No abiogenesis = no cell = nothing to evolve biologically = no evolution. That's the key.

If abiogenesis (molecules to a living reproducing cell) as a theory can be shown to be reasonably viable via a series of ALL NATURAL processes, then I would agree that evolutionary theory would at least have a good foundational argument. It doesn't prove evolution, but it would be damn a good start.

The chemistry of a living cell is in constant flux, that is, the chemical processes therein are not in equilibrium. When these reactions reach a state of equilibrium, they stop, and no further reactions or processes take place in the cell and the cell dies. That's how they fight cancer; disrupt the processes in the cancer cell and it dies.

Since evolutionists claim that life came from chemicals, it is up to the evolutionists to come up with the processes (theoretical or otherwise) that brought about all the necessary chemical compounds required by a cell into existence (like twenty different amino acids, hundreds of proteins, DNA, fats, sugars, etc, etc) and then to explain how all those compounds came together and began to catalyse and react together in a very specific chain of events to form a living reproducing cell that is not in equilibrium… all via NATURAL observable processes of course.

No easy task is it?

The chemical origin of life is taken in faith by evolutionists; it's a belief, lacking any serious evidence; just a few scraps of evidence linked together by vast chasms of unknown processes (sorry; should I say gaps?).

No abiogenesis = no cell = nothing to evolve biologically = no evolution.

The evolutionist's mantra: "Life exists so it must have happened. Don't worry about it". Nonsense: that's an admission that they don't know how, and like most evolutionists they really don't care how.

Life exists. So, if life exists, and if it can be shown NOT to have come about via natural processes, then …

No doubt I'll get hijacked off topic again. Over to you.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP20 Feb 2009 7:18 a.m. PST

I don't know, or I was wrong IS THE BIGGEST AND COOLEST TNING a real scientist ever will discover.
Thats how science moves forward. Science is NEVER satisfied with it's answer, it always looks better and more complete answers.

So what if scientist can't answer abiogenesis 1000% accurat, they aren't stopping and never will until they have the answer, and again, abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with Evolution, as evolution deals only with life.
They are two completely seperate fields. That abiogenesis isn't as rock solid as evolution dosn't disprove evolution.
Evolution is a fact, learn to live with it

I'm sure crhkrebs can come up with more points of your total wrongness

RockyRusso Inactive Member20 Feb 2009 3:01 p.m. PST

Hi

You guys pro-evolution have missed it. T holds you to details missing the point that it isnt physically possible.

In a sense, TJ is doing the same thing Dawkins does on the other side. He is validating Dawkins. Dawkins, a believer when young, found that theology didn't answer the detail questions and, therefore, was wrong.

So, TJ, now that you have proved to your satisfaction that Intelligent design is truth. You have "proven" god.

Which version of god? Jehovah or Juno?

When genesis said "let there be light" why didn't the book instead explain the basic truths of high energy physics? Wouldn't a nice set of formulas and all have simplified things for all of us?

As for the usual disproving science by directing our attentions to hoaxes like Piltdown. Would it then be fair to dismiss religion because of the fraud of shards of the true cross? Or finding Noah's Ark?

Now part of the discussion is testing, repeated testing of what we know. When you accept an innoculation for the new verision of a disease that has come from the old, you are implicitly approving of evolution. When some criminal is caught by examining the DNA, you do the same.

However, there isn't any real world proof of the creator that will stand up in court or anywhere in any legal preceeding. So, having proved "god", which god and where is your proof?

Rocky

crhkrebs Inactive Member20 Feb 2009 3:28 p.m. PST

Trevor,

Are you even going to bother addressing some of the answers to your questions? If not then this will be a short discourse.

As to some of the points you brought up:

No abiogenesis = no cell = nothing to evolve biologically = no evolution. Obviously some here are having a liitle difficulty in grasping this concept.

I'll agree with you here Trevor, but it is you with the difficulty. You can add all the equal signs you want in your little equation, but that does not make abiogenesis equivalent to evolution.

For instance, you may have an Intelligent Designer (let's call him God, shall we?) who creates the Universe and pre-programs all the living creatures to evolve by using DNA (and some RNA)as their means for reproduction. That was the personal viewpoint of Dr. Threkeld, my Genetics Professor back in my undergrad years. He was a very religious man, a polymath and a brilliant geneticist and teacher. He would have also found your "abiogenesis=evolution" concept absurd. I'm sorry you didn't understand my example from the field of physics. Gunfreak's response above, is quite clear.

I was wondering how long it would be before I was directed to the "Talk Origins" site: Yes gentlemen, I have read many articles on this site over the years, probably more than anyone here; some are good (though misleading); some a little out of date; some just plain wrong.

Good for you, Trevor. Since I am hard pressed to discern the entries that are "just plain wrong" would you be so kind as to point out the incorrect ones for me. I'm sure Gunfreak would be interested too.

Question: Is it peer reviewed as you demand of my sources?

No Trevor, websites are not peer reviewed, professional scientific journals are. Was that not clear from my Feb. 19th entry?

I too could direct you to many creationist sites scientifically debunking what the evolutionist sites say…and we continue to go around and around in circles… same old arguments… you and I hear them every time we discuss creation/evolution.

Ya…..except for one thing. I do read the Creationist websites at times. Talk Origens at least references to actual journal articles, something the Creationist sites are skimpy on. Oh ya….. show me!

By the way, I referred you to TalkOrigens to expose a type of fallacious reasoning you employed known as "argumentum ad ignorantiam". Since you are allergic to TalkOrigens how about these:

link

link

link

skepdic.com/ignorance.html

The above site you may find useful. If you look under "Junk Science" you will find the entry for "Creation Science".

Now lets look at one of the better written "Creationist" sites shall we? How about:

link

This addresses the question, " Is intelligent design merely an "argument from ignorance?". Of course, in the long answer they answer No. Allow me a long clip from this site. I have cut it up for easier understanding.
Where to begin?

In reality intelligent design proponents do not claim that evolutionists will not figure out how irreducibly complex structures evolved because they have tried and failed, but rather because irreducibly complex structures are in principle unevolvable.

Actually, evolutionists HAVE shown how irreducibly complex systems have evolved. See Dawkin's response to Paley's quip, "What good is half an eye"? Dawkins (and others) have spent a good chunk of their careers showing that irreducible complexity does not exist.

Once again, look up the transcript of the Dover trial to show how the professor studying bacterial stingers showed that with a few extra proteins they turn into Behe's irreducibly complex flagellum. Many bacteria have evolved different stingers, there are many types of differing complexity. The most complex are flagellum. Even Behe conceded that this was a tenable process.

Another interesting thing is that Behe, (the ID believing flagellum expert) is not attacking this line of reasoning, but William Dembski (the ID laywer) is, in his book "No Free Lunch". Odd that.

Consider the following quote from Charles Darwin In The Origin of Species Darwin:
'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'

Well since Darwin didn't know the molecular basis for inheritance (to be discovered about 100 years later) can we cut him some slack? Probably not. If Darwin would be shown how genes work and how a bacterial "stinger" is about 1-2 genes away from being a flagellum, I would guess he would still be happy with his statement.

Irreducibly complex structures represent such a fundamental challenge to Darwin's theory, because if they are changed slightly, they cease to function.

Wrong, see Dawkins.

Irreducible complexity is not something that is possible to evolve under Darwinian evolution, for Darwinian evolution requires that structures are functional along every step of their evolution, and if you change an irreducibly complex structure slightly, it cease to function.

Wonderfully refuted during the Dover trial. (I'm sorry I don't have the name of the flagellum professor. Feel free to look him up.)

Thus, intelligent design does not claim that evolutionists "just haven't yet figured out how to evolved irreducible complexity" but rather that:
"Darwinists haven't figured out how to evolve irreducible complexity because irreducible complexity is in principle impossible to evolve. Irreducible complexity is a fundamental falsfier of Darwinism.

Repetitive aren't they? And still wrong. Here is my favourite:

However, intelligent design theory does not merely depend on irreducible complexity being impossible to evolve. Intelligent design begins with positive predictions based upon our observational experience of how intelligent designers operates.

Then why repeat endlessly the mantra of "irreducible complexity"? If the IDers even believe that that last sentence is true, then where is all the ID research that these smart people are doing? Show us the paleological findings, the paleo-botanical findings, the geological findings, the cell research, the microbiological research, the cancer research, the drug research, etc. etc. that the Iders are doing, that have been published in accordance with proper peer reviewed protocols, that show that ID exists, it works, it explains the evidence and can be predictive.

We are still awaiting your evidence Trevor.

The chemistry of a living cell is in constant flux, that is, the chemical processes therein are not in equilibrium. When these reactions reach a state of equilibrium, they stop, and no further reactions or processes take place in the cell and the cell dies. That's how they fight cancer; disrupt the processes in the cancer cell and it dies.

I can't figure out what any of this means. For example, in stark contrast to what you say, a cell maintains a state of equilibrium of it's pH in order NOT to die. It also must maintain a strict equilibrium regarding it's osmotic pressure in order NOT to die. Your comments on how cancer is fought is so vague as to be meaningless. Sorry.

Ralph (who, apparently, is a hijacker)

crhkrebs Inactive Member20 Feb 2009 3:31 p.m. PST

Hi Rocky,

I didn't want this to veer into Fez territory.

Ralph

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP20 Feb 2009 3:34 p.m. PST

I didn't want to bring god into it as it often gets sticky.
But remember that evolution is NOT atheism, most religious people have no problem excepting evolution, including the pope, a man I would not normaly call liberal or up to date on current afairs.

What the whole creationsim is, is anti science, yes they use big scientifc words, but it's all a cover, they want to bring back the thocrasy of old, were scientists are bruned at the stake ect. All because they see science as dangures to religion

RockyRusso Inactive Member21 Feb 2009 12:16 p.m. PST

Hi

I didn't see how this would veer into fez territory. In other threads you might have gotten the idea that, at heart, I am a mechanic, I bolt and test. Family of scientists, but at bottom we were just glorified bench types. Always focused on building something to test comething.

In gentler threads, how bows work. But here, he refutes evolution with a couple false syllogisms. One that the brain is the most complex. Which ignores the bulk of creation and assumes the human mind is the only mind around. Ignoring the wonderful elegance of the complexity of fractal math. And the second is that evolution is a contradiction of god or intelligent design. It would be as if you said to a catholic that his having children through ordinary or extraordinary sex "Proved" or "disproved" something about the story of the virgin birth. This syllogism is basically one of creating artificial subsets without context to "prove" something.

In essence, he insists that the facts are wrong because they conclusions he draws would be false! It is the conclusions that are wrong, not the evidence.

R

crhkrebs Inactive Member22 Feb 2009 6:26 a.m. PST

Hi Rocky,

I agree, with the exception of:

…..he refutes evolution with a couple false syllogisms……that evolution is a contradiction of god or intelligent design.

Certainly evolution is not atheism. I've only heard this from the religious, by the way, not from any atheist. But that is an aside.

I'll say it again. Darwin did not "discover" evolution any more than Newton "discovered" gravity. What they did was describe a mechanism by which these phenomena can be explained. That animals and plants evolved and changed over geological time spans was known well before Darwin. He, and Wallace, thought that the means for evolution was by the natural selection of certain adaptations and abilities. He observed that these changes were hereditary and were passed on to the next generation based on the "fitness" of each ensuing generation. This is where Darwinism differed from competeing theories that have fallen by the wayside. Who remembers Lamarck and Lysenko?

Evolution by Natural Selection IS a contradiction to Intelligent Design, as the IDers present themselves. To them every living thing was created perfectly, as they exist now. There is no change from one species to another and animals and plants never change. They employ "argumentum ad ignorantium" when bringing up "irreducible complexity", the hinge upon which their entire "philosophy" turns. You know the argument, "I can't possibly conceive that the brain/eye/flagellum could have evolved, therefore it DIDN'T!"

By the way there is no shame in coming from a family of mechanically inclined, scientific, glorified bench types! I come from a similar background.

Now in a more pedantic/philosophical mode, don't you need 2 premises to infer a conclusion, to make a syllogism?

:^)

Ralph

RockyRusso Inactive Member22 Feb 2009 2:05 p.m. PST

Hi

What I was trying to point out is that he is doing the classic illogic thread by starting with false assumptions and then reasoning from them. I wasn't saying evolution denies god or ID but that he saw it that way. Frankly, it is the same complaint I have with dawkins!

I often find myself defending the people with the bad ideas. It is simple really. I excuse, as dawkins does not, the belief in genesis! If one accepts that GOD was chatting with a stone age Shepard in the desert to explain creation…..no matter the inspiration, that stone age shepard had no math better than addition and subtraction, no number bigger than a thousand…no way he gets "Billion and billions" and the first 30 seconds of the big bang.

I cannot do the math on that one, and I am not sure I know anyone personally who can!

Dawkins expects too much from genesis. And the true believers do as well, and both end up arguing not the facts, but the expectations.

Rocky

Ghecko22 Feb 2009 9:02 p.m. PST

Discussions like these always seem to shoot off onto tangents – let's look at the basics:

Question: Do you have any evidence to show that science (the scientific endeavour and method) is the ONLY way to find and know a truth?

Question: Do you have any evidence to show that science (the scientific endeavour and method) is the only way to find ANY truth?

(And don't give us any of that usual crap about creationists not being real scientists; read the questions above carefully)

Now, the atheist mantra is: "There's no scientific proof that God exists"; etc.

I ask: Is this a scientific statement or is it merely a statement of belief?

See, right there, right at the start, those who believe that the scientific method is the only path to all truth and enlightenment have a problem. With absolutely no evidence to support their belief, they choose to reject any and all other explanations even before they start.

Once you have decided this, then any and ALL evidence MUST be interpreted in the light of atheism/naturalism/evolution. You have no choice you "cannot let a divine foot in the door."

Can the scientific method tell us anything about something that is not physical; not of time, matter and space? Can something actually exists that we all agree actually does exist, yet is not physical?

What of the human mind?

How big is your mind? How heavy is it? What colour is it? And so on.

I hope we can all agree that the human mind actually exists. Is it physical? It certainly has a physical part, that is, the brain, but can or does the human mind exist separate and independent of the brain? How could the scientific method determine these things?

Those who believe that the scientific method is the only path to all truth and enlightenment have totally failed to understand the limits of what science can do and what science cannot do.

If you reject the supernatural out of question then you have no choice but to reject a supernatural explanation; you have no choice but to attempt to find a natural explanation for your observations no matter what, for example, abiogenesis.

Still no answers to my questions either… are there?

crhkrebs Inactive Member23 Feb 2009 7:04 a.m. PST

Discussions like these always seem to shoot off onto tangents

Well your last entry shows that it is you going down that tangent.

Question: Do you have any evidence to show that science (the scientific endeavour and method) is the ONLY way to find and know a truth?

Irrelevant question since we were talking about the scientific merits of Darwin's Theory versus creationism.

Question: Do you have any evidence to show that science (the scientific endeavour and method) is the only way to find ANY truth?

The short answer is NO, but irrelevant again, since we are discussing a field of scientific study. Since we are discussing biology, then yes, science is the best tool we have to explore this field.

(And don't give us any of that usual crap about creationists not being real scientists; read the questions above carefully)

Perhaps you could read a little more carefully since no one ever said anything like that. I, for one, believe that Michael Behe is a good scientist. Take a close look at who is who in the ID world. The vast majority are not scientists.

Can the scientific method tell us anything about something that is not physical; not of time, matter and space?

No, and science and scientists have never said otherwise. But since we are talking about biology, the scientific method is most appropriate.

Those who believe that the scientific method is the only path to all truth and enlightenment have totally failed to understand the limits of what science can do and what science cannot do.

Which people are these?

Still no answers to my questions either… are there?

Trevor, I have taken the time to answer your questions, I've responded to points that I thought you had down incorrectly, and I've indicated when I believe your points were extraneous to the central argument. I've even highlighted them for easier reading.

You, on the other hand……….

I asked you about your comment:

I for one will lament what beliefs his theory led to and where they have taken mankind in the last 200 years.

No answer.

I asked you if you could provide a sample of the "considerable material" alluded to in:

Have you ever looked at the considerable amount of material scientifically debunking virtually all of the evoltionary spin (eg, especially in the area of abiogenesis) and then weighed it up? I must say that I suspect not.

I got no answer.

When I asked for examples of articles in TalkOrigens that were "just plain wrong", from your statement:

I have read many articles on this site over the years, probably more than anyone here; some are good (though misleading); some a little out of date; some just plain wrong.

I got no answer.

Finally I asked:

…….where is all the ID research that these smart people are doing? Show us the paleological findings, the paleo-botanical findings, the geological findings, the cell research, the microbiological research, the cancer research, the drug research, etc. etc. that the Iders are doing, that have been published in accordance with proper peer reviewed protocols, that show that ID exists, it works, it explains the evidence and can be predictive.

I got no answer.

Since you are unwilling or unable to enter into an intelligent discourse on this topic or provide examples of statements that you have brought up, I can't see any reason for me to continue.

Perhaps you should continue your line of reasoning on the Blue Fez, where the tangent you started would seem more appropriate. However, as Rocky's responses seem to indicate, you may not get a sympathetic hearing there either.

Best wishes.

Ralph

RockyRusso Inactive Member23 Feb 2009 12:31 p.m. PST

Hi

TJ, again, you are inventing false syllogisms and reasoning from your inventions.

Science is a process, a tool. And like all good tools anyone can use it.

The problem with the "personal testimony" part of religion is that there is no tool. No repeatability. You can "testify" what you know about God forever, but you cannot produce a way for me to test your "knowledge". Thus, when you suggest, above, that you KNOW things, the problem is that no one else can. If I show you how to test a theorem the way I did it, you can repeat the process and check my results and prove to yourself that the process works.

Like starting a car.

You might not believe in cars, but the process for my results is there for all to see and repeat. The basic problem is that YOU know stuff like ID, but you have no way to let me repeat your knowledge. Well, I could say, "a smart guy like that wouldn't lie to me"…or something. A matter of faith. But you cannot demonstrate your knowledge.

Creating false criteria and then reasoning won't convince the mechanic in me.

Rocky

Ghecko23 Feb 2009 3:43 p.m. PST

And that's exactly what I am saying How do you test evolution? How do you test something like abiogenesis?

Bacteria mutating into bacteria mutating into endless bacteria isn't evolution; all you end up with is bacteria. Evolution needs change. Bacteria mutating into a multi-celled organism mutating into an invertebrate, etc, etc, into man; now that's classical picture of evolution presented in books, on TV, in the classroom, etc, etc.

If I ask you "How can a fish become an amphibian?" you can come up with all sorts of theories, but exactly how would you test them? You know you can't test it. You can look the fossils and formulate a theory but how do you test it?

Biological evolutionary progression needs something biological to work on doesn't it? Of course it does. Thus, abiogenesis MUST occur before evolution can begin. Like the moment of your conception you can't exist without it.

Abiogenesis is testable though. It is something that you could possibly replicate in the lab. You know; do this then this then this and something comes crawling out of the test tube. This would be a massive boost to evolutionary theory would it not?

So, all we need to do is start with the theoretical processes to bring about all the necessary chemical compounds required by a cell (twenty different amino acids, hundreds of proteins, DNA, RNA, lipids, sugars, etc, etc).

That done, then all we need to do is come up with some processes to bring all of those compounds together to catalyse and react together in a very specific chain of events to form a living, reproducing cell.

That could be done in the lab could it not?

You know, I believe that one day this may happen mankind is intelligent they may make something that comes crawling out of a test tube and they will say "There it is you creationists were wrong".

Yes, after decades and decades of research by thousands and thousands of brilliant scientists, millions upon millions of dollars in funding and all sorts of equipment they will have finally proven that no intelligence was required to produce life naturally.

So, when you can answer my questions on abiogenesis I'll move onto yours.

No abiogenesis = no cell = nothing to evolve biologically = no evolution.

Of, I forgot you don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened but it did! Yet, I'm considered a nut when I say the same thing about creation. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

imrael24 Feb 2009 6:07 a.m. PST

And that's exactly what I am saying How do you test evolution

Well, there are some pretty neat small scale tests (ranging up to fruit flies IIRC), but really you're willfully misunderstanding the nature of the scientific process. The purpose of laboratory testing is to provide evidence to construct or test a theory. Other sources of evidence – observations etc – are just as valid. A theory is an explanation for observed phenomena which stands until disproved by observation (although of course there may be a number of theories for a given observation).

A robust theory must fit with all the observed facts. A useful theory will make verifiable predictions about the world. Evolutionary theory in its current state does both of those things, and has not been refuted by any observations and experiments.

Because ID introduces an unmeasurable unverifiable outside effect its not a true theory – its incapable of any predictive value whatsoever because the outside effect can to anything at any time in any arbitrary manner. It may well be your personal belief that the universe is run that way, but its not in any sense science.

Gunfreak Supporting Member of TMP24 Feb 2009 9:02 a.m. PST

Creasionist are just weak in their fate, as they feel the need to try and prove their god/gods existance with psudoscience, while millions of religious people just belive because they do, creationist are so weak of fate they HAVE TO prove god exist by any means nessesary, including breaking sevral comandments

If you can't belive in a god simply though fate, then you might just want to drop religion alltogather

RockyRusso Inactive Member24 Feb 2009 11:49 a.m. PST

Hi

The elements are testable in a lab. And have been.

You are saying there are no automobiles because I cannot start with unrefined ore, and have a working car by the end of the day. People out there are refining metals, casting plastics, producing all the parts, and STILL with all the parts in hand, I cannot assemble a car in front of you in a half hour while you watch.

Therefore cars were a miracle from god that just spring into existence.

And after your reasoning, you indicate that while I have to prove every step from dirt in the ground to driving to vegas, you don't have to demonstrate anything.

You have a few dozen ID creation theories and none of them stand up to any detail analysis of their parts, but you insist that I just accept.

A new species is a new species. You insist that this isn't enough? OK.

but your alternative must meet your standards as well, and doesn't.

Again, you are the guys you complain about like Dawkins who, as a biologist saw that Genesis didn't match reality in any form, therefore there is no god.

R

Ghecko24 Feb 2009 5:11 p.m. PST

Quote: "A theory is an explanation for observed phenomena which stands until disproved by observation …"

Yes, as we all know, a theory as it stands is no longer valid if falsified.

Question: If evolution is a valid scientific theory as you suggest, then how is it falsified? How could it be falsified? It's so rubbery and flexible that literally anything can be interpreted as being "evolution" at work. If it fits the theory its evolution; if it doesn't it's deemed irrelevant.

Continuing: "… (although of course there may be a number of theories for a given observation)."

True. Creation is also a theory for explaining an observation. So, what is the motive behind people insisting that creation is not a valid theory for a given observation? Is it or is it not? If not, then why not? Is there some scientific reason why it is not or is it just personal prejudice against what is at its core God and all that implies?

Quote: "The elements are testable in a lab. And have been."

Mmm… have been? All of them? I wonder for instance What is the theoretical natural process or processes to form the only left handed sugars that life uses naturally? You know that stuff that holds your DNA together the ribose? Etc, Etc.

Quote": "You are saying there are no automobiles because I cannot start with unrefined ore, and have a working car by the end of the day. People out there are refining metals, casting plastics, producing all the parts, and STILL with all the parts in hand, I cannot assemble a car in front of you in a half hour while you watch. Therefore cars were a miracle from god that just spring into existence."

Oh dear. You know, I've had a pretty good look around and I am yet to see an automobile "evolve" naturally. I have observed many designed and built by lots of intelligent people (that's good science at work) but I am yet to see one just pop up via natural processes…

Quote: "And after your reasoning, you indicate that while I have to prove every step from dirt in the ground to driving to Vegas, you don't have to demonstrate anything."

Comment: Yes, this is true. As the evolutionist who proclaims goo to you evolution, you take the affirmative position, thus, yes; it is up to you to prove your theory. When it comes to evolution I only need to demonstrate the negative position to falsify it show your position to be incorrect. (And I'll add visa versa with creation for you).

Quote: "You have a few dozen ID creation theories and none of them stand up to any detail analysis of their parts, but you insist that I just accept."

Comment: Interesting statement. I would be interested in your thoughts on this:

What came first the immune system or the need for an immune system?

Another interesting system you may wish to consider is the "blood clotting cascade" of your blood. It consists of a dozen interconnected processes involving dozens of compounds that must all work correctly and in sequence each and every time otherwise you will bleed to death or your whole circulatory system will clot up. How does something like this evolve naturally?

Quote; "A new species is a new species. You insist that this isn't enough? OK."

Sigh. Again, bacteria mutating into bacteria mutating into endless bacteria isn't evolution at work; all you end up with is lots of species of bacteria. That's natural selection at work.

Evolution needs change demands change and big changes at that!

Bacteria mutating into a multi-celled organisms mutating into an invertebrates, etc, etc, right up to man; now that IS the classical picture of evolution presented in books, on TV, in the classroom, etc, etc, and that's the sort of change you need to be able to demonstrate to support your theory.

But how do we test it? How do we falsify it? Evolution as a theory is un-testable and un-falsifiable. It therefore is not a scientific theory at all. It is a belief system no different to any other religion.

imrael25 Feb 2009 4:38 a.m. PST

Question: If evolution is a valid scientific theory as you suggest, then how is it falsified? How could it be falsified?

You gave one answer to this yourself earlier – a demonstration of irreducible complexity. (for example, a feature of a living organism which could not have evolved according to the darwinian model because the intermediate steps would be non-survivable). The general answer is to some up with an observation incompatible with the theory – go to it and let us know when you succeed!

Contrary to your statement, Darwins theory of evolution could be falisfied very easily by one observation which doesnt fit. Creationism, on the other hand can never be falsified or verified because it refers to supernatural processes (in the literal sense of processed outside the laws of nature). Nor can you ever predict any result based on creationism for the same reason. Thus not a theory and not science.

RockyRusso Inactive Member25 Feb 2009 12:21 p.m. PST

Hi

You decided in the last one to just throw out a lot of BS and see what sticks.

The format makes it difficult to do this: I apologize to the others with the wasted space:

"Quote: "A theory is an explanation for observed phenomena which stands until disproved by observation …""

As opposed to your position where there is no obervation you will accept to the contrary. This is your using the humility of science as a "weakness" and then implying that cause you are certain and inflexable, you have the better theory. Which is, frankly, just an expression of bias not intellect.

"Yes, as we all know, a theory as it stands is no longer valid if falsified." This is one of your false syllogisms. If you said "fact" you would be correct. That is why it is "theory" because it IS subject to improvement. Even better, there is the concept of "modeling" that is a theory doesn't have to be the absolute BIG TRUTH, but just a model for understanding some part of the reality.

"Question: If evolution is a valid scientific theory as you suggest, then how is it falsified? How could it be falsified? It's so rubbery and flexible that literally anything can be interpreted as being "evolution" at work. If it fits the theory its evolution; if it doesn't it's deemed irrelevant." Which is another false syllogism, and again a form of special pleading…the counter being your FAITH which has no evidence at all.

"Continuing: "… (although of course there may be a number of theories for a given observation)."" See modeling above.

"True. Creation is also a theory for explaining an observation. So, what is the motive behind people insisting that creation is not a valid theory for a given observation? Is it or is it not? If not, then why not? Is there some scientific reason why it is not or is it just personal prejudice against what is at its core God and all that implies?"

Because NONE of the evidence supports the theory. And none of the testable bits produce reproducable results. I am unclear why you don't get this one. In essence, your stance requires that your untestable assertions and testimony be equal to any sort of proof.

"Quote: "The elements are testable in a lab. And have been."

Mmm… have been? All of them? " This is another inventing a false syllogism. We have SOME testability, you have none, but insist we prove ALL to your. Which part of Genesis as creation has any basis in fact? I am not asking ALL of genesis, just any of it.

"I wonder for instance What is the theoretical natural process or processes to form the only left handed sugars that life uses naturally? You know that stuff that holds your DNA together the ribose? Etc, Etc." Well, again, you have created something. I would direct you to your nearest packed of "splenda" for an example of those biochemists understanding the process you suggest enought to produce a right handed sugar!

"Quote": "You are saying there are no automobiles because I cannot start with unrefined ore, and have a working car by the end of the day. People out there are refining metals, casting plastics, producing all the parts, and STILL with all the parts in hand, I cannot assemble a car in front of you in a half hour while you watch. Therefore cars were a miracle from god that just spring into existence."

"Oh dear. You know, I've had a pretty good look around and I am yet to see an automobile "evolve" naturally. I have observed many designed and built by lots of intelligent people (that's good science at work) but I am yet to see one just pop up via natural processes…"

Clever but off point. You insist that evolution fails because it isn't demonstrated that we go from atoms to rabbits on a wednesday. I am pointing out that by your criteria, cars don't exist because I cannot repeat their "evolution" in an afternoon. Essentially, this is another false syllogism, you create a ridiculous criteria for proof that NOTHING much can match to "prove" things doing exist. So, you invent a criteria, when I attack the criteria, you then want to use that as a proof.

Quote: "And after your reasoning, you indicate that while I have to prove every step from dirt in the ground to driving to Vegas, you don't have to demonstrate anything."

"Comment: Yes, this is true. As the evolutionist who proclaims goo to you evolution, you take the affirmative position, thus, yes; it is up to you to prove your theory. When it comes to evolution I only need to demonstrate the negative position to falsify it show your position to be incorrect. (And I'll add visa versa with creation for you)."

Comment, another BS point. You want me to demonstrate a process of billions of years in 15 minutes. You allot no time to the proof and say "see". But your criteria is fasle. You baldly assert that you need only do a negative. But deny me that I have SOME proof, you have NONE for ID, therefore, ID is definitely not true by your criteria. You didn't just deny evolution, you presented an alternative theory calles "ID" which maans "god" to you.

Thus, it is no longer an issue of you just needing to prove a negative, you presented an alternate with no proof.

"Quote: "You have a few dozen ID creation theories and none of them stand up to any detail analysis of their parts, but you insist that I just accept."

Comment: Interesting statement. I would be interested in your thoughts on this:"

which is just you not paying attention.

"What came first the immune system or the need for an immune system?" Another false syllogism.

"Another interesting system you may wish to consider is the "blood clotting cascade" of your blood. It consists of a dozen interconnected processes involving dozens of compounds that must all work correctly and in sequence each and every time otherwise you will bleed to death or your whole circulatory system will clot up. How does something like this evolve naturally?" Over a great deal of time…

"Quote; "A new species is a new species. You insist that this isn't enough? OK."

Sigh. Again, bacteria mutating into bacteria mutating into endless bacteria isn't evolution at work; all you end up with is lots of species of bacteria. That's natural selection at work." However, natural selection is a basic point in evolution. It was the FIRST thing attacked by your side who insisted that natural selection was anti god. Why? Well, god made every animal and man perfectly to fit his slot, and natural selection suggested otherwise.

"Evolution needs change demands change and big changes at that!" No, it doesn't. But big changes require BIG time. While ID only requires creation at 9AM grenwich mean time, October 26, 4004BC.

"Bacteria mutating into a multi-celled organisms mutating into an invertebrates, etc, etc, right up to man; now that IS the classical picture of evolution presented in books, on TV, in the classroom, etc, etc, and that's the sort of change you need to be able to demonstrate to support your theory." Mutating over BIG time. You keep leaving out the time part.

"But how do we test it? How do we falsify it? Evolution as a theory is un-testable and un-falsifiable. It therefore is not a scientific theory at all. It is a belief system no different to any other religion"

A believe system with provable results. Everytime a crime is solved with DNA, a relationship proved with DNA you have a minor support for the theory. As opposed to WHAT for Id?

Rocky

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34