- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution
Login/Join to Participate
Posted:ok so first read this http://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
this is.
*deep cleansing breath*
ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?
Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers
i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes?
/end vent
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
this is. *deep cleansing breath*
ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?
Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers
i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes?
/end vent
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Delete TopicPosted:Written by: spiralx
Which would put you apart from almost every physicist on the planet - steady-state theorists are vanishingly rare nowadays, relying on extremely speculative hypotheses in order to overcome fairly fundamental objections like Olber's paradox.
The Big Bang seems fairly solid, which implies that matter hasn't existed for an infinite time
Spiral, you're either missing the point I was trying to make, or arguing for one that I've yet to make any comment on.
I'm totally aware that steady-state theories are not taken that seriously by scientists- I'm very aware that the 'Big-Bang' theory is favoured and I am not arguing against it.
The point I was making was in response to a fundamentalist claim that God could have existed for ever.
Without going into too much detail (it's all covered in the earlier parts of this thread) I'm simply demonstrating why the universe could not have been in existence forever (ie could not have existed for an infinite time-span), using the fact that protons decay in a finite time.
To sum up, far from arguing for any kind of steady-state universe theory, I'm actually doing the opposite.
Which would put you apart from almost every physicist on the planet - steady-state theorists are vanishingly rare nowadays, relying on extremely speculative hypotheses in order to overcome fairly fundamental objections like Olber's paradox.
The Big Bang seems fairly solid, which implies that matter hasn't existed for an infinite time
Spiral, you're either missing the point I was trying to make, or arguing for one that I've yet to make any comment on.
I'm totally aware that steady-state theories are not taken that seriously by scientists- I'm very aware that the 'Big-Bang' theory is favoured and I am not arguing against it.
The point I was making was in response to a fundamentalist claim that God could have existed for ever.
Without going into too much detail (it's all covered in the earlier parts of this thread) I'm simply demonstrating why the universe could not have been in existence forever (ie could not have existed for an infinite time-span), using the fact that protons decay in a finite time.
To sum up, far from arguing for any kind of steady-state universe theory, I'm actually doing the opposite.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:In the more modern versions of the steady state theory matter is being constantly created in special regions of the universe. But this whole thing is off-topic...
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Delete
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Although that is funny, I imagine it might also be offensive to various religious people... careful jeff(fake) you've already been poked by FF
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Although that is funny, I imagine it might also be offensive to various religious people... careful jeff(fake) you've already been poked by FF
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: jeff(fake)
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Your knowledge of the Bible is as good here as in your previous posts. Please bother to look things up before you assert them.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Written by: Patriarch917
First, the Bible says that animals reproduce after their own kind. We know that through natural and artificial breeding, huge variations in the manifested characteristics can be derived. For example, we have all different sorts of dogs. In order to disprove creation, one need merely observe dogs naturally turning into a different kind of animal, such as a cat.
This is a basic misunderstanding of nature. 'Species' is just a convienient grouping name, like genus or class, based on recent descent. After all some taxonomists insist that birds should be classified as reptiles, it's just historical reasons we class them in a group of thier own. It would be impossible for one organism to change into a completly different one, like a dog into a cat. Evolution only works through descent, like a wolf into a dog, to provide an example of one species becoming anouther.
I did not use the word species. And I agree that it is probably impossible for organisms to change into completely different ones, no matter how much time you give them. However, if this were to happen it would disprove creationism.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Written by: Patriach917
A second prediction is that all humans have descended from a group of 8 common ancestors (and those 8 were descended from just two common ancestors a little further back.) If we could find that a branch of humans developed from a genetic source that is different from the rest of us (a different sort of monkey), this would disprove the creation account.
a:human's evolved from an ape. In fact we are still apes.
b:the most recent common ancestor of humans is reconed to have lived about 150 000 years ago, much, much later than our most recent relative with the chimp genus.
You reckon that they did, but I reckon that our ancestors came off a boat in the middle east. It is true that you can assume that people evolved from apes, but an assumption cant disprove another assumption. Finding an island where humans evolved independently of the rest of us would, however, disprove creation.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Written by: Patriarch917
Bat wings seem to be another easy to understand candidate for something that is unlikely to have developed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that rat like creatures could have given birth to many generations with gradually larger and larger webbed forepaws that were not suited for either running, swimming, or flying. Ockhams Razor seems to suggest that the wings sprang up in a useful form at once.
You're right, they would be crap for runnin' or swimmin'. But they would be freakin great for gliding. Really now.
Then you must be assuming that wings sprang up not through gradual mutations, but with one big jump to a gliding wing (with no transitional stages in between). While I agree that small changes could perhaps lead from gliding to flapping, you must admit that the jump from walking to gliding could not have had hundreds of transitional forms in between. This only proves my point that at a certain size, a wing becomes useless even for gliding, and it would be an evolutionary disadvantage to have an intermediate stage. Thus, either bats were originally created with wings, or functional size wings (big enough to glide with) arose at once, not through gradual changes.
Im not disputing a gradual development between wings that can glide and wings that can fly. Im disputing a gradual development between feet that can run and wings that can glide. Any intermediate stage between walking and gliding would not be much of a competitive advantage.
It just occurred to me that since Patriarch917 believes in the literal truth of the Bible he will presumably believe that all of us who practice crop rotation and wear clothes containing more than one kind of fibre should be stoned to death. Curse my fashion sense and organic vegetable plot.
Your knowledge of the Bible is as good here as in your previous posts. Please bother to look things up before you assert them.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Written by: Patriarch917
First, the Bible says that animals reproduce after their own kind. We know that through natural and artificial breeding, huge variations in the manifested characteristics can be derived. For example, we have all different sorts of dogs. In order to disprove creation, one need merely observe dogs naturally turning into a different kind of animal, such as a cat.
This is a basic misunderstanding of nature. 'Species' is just a convienient grouping name, like genus or class, based on recent descent. After all some taxonomists insist that birds should be classified as reptiles, it's just historical reasons we class them in a group of thier own. It would be impossible for one organism to change into a completly different one, like a dog into a cat. Evolution only works through descent, like a wolf into a dog, to provide an example of one species becoming anouther.
I did not use the word species. And I agree that it is probably impossible for organisms to change into completely different ones, no matter how much time you give them. However, if this were to happen it would disprove creationism.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Written by: Patriach917
A second prediction is that all humans have descended from a group of 8 common ancestors (and those 8 were descended from just two common ancestors a little further back.) If we could find that a branch of humans developed from a genetic source that is different from the rest of us (a different sort of monkey), this would disprove the creation account.
a:human's evolved from an ape. In fact we are still apes.
b:the most recent common ancestor of humans is reconed to have lived about 150 000 years ago, much, much later than our most recent relative with the chimp genus.
You reckon that they did, but I reckon that our ancestors came off a boat in the middle east. It is true that you can assume that people evolved from apes, but an assumption cant disprove another assumption. Finding an island where humans evolved independently of the rest of us would, however, disprove creation.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Written by: Patriarch917
Bat wings seem to be another easy to understand candidate for something that is unlikely to have developed. It takes a lot of faith to believe that rat like creatures could have given birth to many generations with gradually larger and larger webbed forepaws that were not suited for either running, swimming, or flying. Ockhams Razor seems to suggest that the wings sprang up in a useful form at once.
You're right, they would be crap for runnin' or swimmin'. But they would be freakin great for gliding. Really now.
Then you must be assuming that wings sprang up not through gradual mutations, but with one big jump to a gliding wing (with no transitional stages in between). While I agree that small changes could perhaps lead from gliding to flapping, you must admit that the jump from walking to gliding could not have had hundreds of transitional forms in between. This only proves my point that at a certain size, a wing becomes useless even for gliding, and it would be an evolutionary disadvantage to have an intermediate stage. Thus, either bats were originally created with wings, or functional size wings (big enough to glide with) arose at once, not through gradual changes.
Im not disputing a gradual development between wings that can glide and wings that can fly. Im disputing a gradual development between feet that can run and wings that can glide. Any intermediate stage between walking and gliding would not be much of a competitive advantage.
Delete
Posted:Patriarch - I'm speechless 
I'm not entirely sure how to reply to that
You are arguing against things that are not only factually observable but obvious to those with even a shred of scientific understanding.
I'm not entirely sure how to reply to that
You are arguing against things that are not only factually observable but obvious to those with even a shred of scientific understanding.
Delete
Posted:Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys.
It also forbids the creation of donkeys.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeletePosted:Think of the tree squirrel example- jumping from branch to branch to escape predators is clearly advantageous in survival terms.
Initially, body shapes that give a slight aerodynamic adavantage may be favoured- slight 'flags' (of skin) joining front to back legs give extra distance with little extra weight.
Ultimately, a type of squirrel evolves with full gliding capability.
This is how walking (or, in this case, jumping) slides imperceptably in 'gliding'.
In explaining that though, I'm starting to feel as though I'm 'spoon-feeding'.
I think one of the reasons scientific types find creationists a bit draining, is that, whatever they do to attempt to tackle creationists objections, they know that the creationist will simply come up with yet another objection.
Which is OK of course, it's when each new objection is simply the same old one recast.
It doesn't take much imagination or reasoning to see how a gliding 'wing' could evolve; I really shouldn't be having to explain it.
Creationists, don't take this as critisism, simply as feedback- scientists would be happy for you guys to engage in the scientific process; but this isn't the way to do it.
Start trying to see the scientists point of view, anticipate how they're going to respond to your objection, and please, don't simply re-hash it over and over again.
In my opinion.
Initially, body shapes that give a slight aerodynamic adavantage may be favoured- slight 'flags' (of skin) joining front to back legs give extra distance with little extra weight.
Ultimately, a type of squirrel evolves with full gliding capability.
This is how walking (or, in this case, jumping) slides imperceptably in 'gliding'.
In explaining that though, I'm starting to feel as though I'm 'spoon-feeding'.
I think one of the reasons scientific types find creationists a bit draining, is that, whatever they do to attempt to tackle creationists objections, they know that the creationist will simply come up with yet another objection.
Which is OK of course, it's when each new objection is simply the same old one recast.
It doesn't take much imagination or reasoning to see how a gliding 'wing' could evolve; I really shouldn't be having to explain it.
Creationists, don't take this as critisism, simply as feedback- scientists would be happy for you guys to engage in the scientific process; but this isn't the way to do it.
Start trying to see the scientists point of view, anticipate how they're going to respond to your objection, and please, don't simply re-hash it over and over again.
In my opinion.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:If you can explain to me why intermediate steps between walking and gliding must be "not be much of a competitive advantage ", I will believe you, Patriach.
There are some very detailed and thoughtful rebuttals of ID, or neo-Creationism, which the book I'm currently reading references:
Matt Young and Taner Edis's 'Why Intelligent Design Fails', and William Dembski and Michael Ruse's 'Debating Design' (which is written by pro IDists, and still provides more anti-ID points than pro).
As stated before in this debate, your discussion (as reasoned, well thought out and easily the most rationally pro creationist as it is), is identical in layout to William Paley's description of the irreducible complexity of the eye in Natural Theology, and then Michael Behe's claims of the flaggelum of bacteria in Darwin's Black Box of 1996. You're making points that were made in a book published in 1802, which have been thoughtfully, thouroughly and exhaustively disproved, by finer minds than mine. So for every other example (in this case, the leg/arm to wing point), you're just making the same points that have been disproved time and time again.
I can see exactly where you're coming from. Everywhere you look you see organisms that look so perfect they must have been designed. You can read the biblical account and find matches to the world as it is today. You see the apparent designed nature of animals, and you, rather understandably, and perfectly rationally, come to the conclusion that if there is design, there must be a designer.
What scientific fields, (such as oceanography (waves appear to be going up and down, but are in reality going round and round), astrophysics (the sun appears to be going around the world, but it is the world that's going around it) geology (Mountains are apparently solid and immobile but move up and down on a large time scale basis),) have succesfully shown us is that just because it looks designed, the conclusion that it is designed is trite and shallow. It doesn't prove the statement wrong, but it does put a huge amount of doubt into the court of those in favour of the statement.
You yourself admit that evolution can happen at small levels, and so you can see that organisms can change over time. In order to continue this debate, We must agree that the evidence pointing to the universe being 12-14 billion years old and the world being 4.5 billion years old is currently, by modern scientific methods, so incontrovertible that we'd have to believe that we were deliberately being fooled by a God who made the world 6002 years ago (by James Ussher's calculations).
Once we can accept that, we can move on.
If we accept that figure, we can then from that figure show that the first records of life on this planet are from over a billion years ago (don't quote me on this figure, I've left the book at home).
The next step is to see how fast observable, small scale evolution can take place. As Doc showed earlier, its possible to show resistances to antibacterials evolve in a lab. Using Darwins finches, the process of 2 distinct lengths of beaks evolving from one can be observed year after year.
So if small changes can occur at such a high speed, over a few million years, those small changes can become huge ones. There are hypothetical and very plausible examples to this statement.
But it's not enough to say that changes are enough to create the wide variety of species we see on this planet. There must be something driving the changes in a creative direction. This is where it makes fairly naive sense to introduce God as someone making conscious and intelligent design choices. (If anyone's read The Last Continent by Terry Pratchett, The God Of Evolution is a prime example of this). Domestic animals and plants are chosen consciously by the breeder to breed in ways that produce desirable offspring. But as for early mammals, dinosaurs, amphibians etc. there was no human breeder, so something else must have driven the "selection process".
This is the Darwinian concept of Natural Selection. Competetion for resources, food and space drives the selection ever onwards. It cannot drive it backwards. So the process of Evolution continues in an apparently designed direction. It's not going towards anything, towards some perfect creation, instead each step is better for survival in the environment that caused the selection than the one before it.
Instead of being chosen intelligently, it is an emergent process.
It is a process created by the context which is created by the previous context etc. These contexts constantly interact, with random acts (for example a rockfall completely destroying a colony of predators in a small environment, or the arrival of one species in anothers environment), and climate change (even small scale things like an increase of rain over a period of years) influencing each contextual environment and driving evolution onwards.
This hopefully shows (weakly admittedly) the fact that Chimpanzees are not less evolved than us, instead that they have evolved in a different context to us and have. The same can be said for any 'modern' species. They have evolved in different contexts to others!
And there we have it, Darwinism in a nutshell.
It's obvious, and the Creationists have had 200 years to mould their ideas around it and insert God into it.
That's quite a simplistic view and doesn't explain a lot of things, including RNA, mitochondria and DNA, but this post is getting too long already. I'd suggest reading up on those areas in greater detail as they explain issues which my account is weak in, far better than I.
But, back to the point, Patriach:
Evolution doesn't have all the answers, but it is open to conventional scientific methods of proof and disproof. If, for an example, an ape was to be found in the precambrian era, then Evolution would be instantly and irreversibly be disproved. But it hasn't happened!
There are deep mysteries that are currently, and possibly will be permanently, unaccesible to scientific methods. This is religious grounds, where your beliefs will always be superior to my agnosticism. This is where answers lie within the "word of God" and science is silent. This is where you can pick and choose which ever belief system you feel comfortable with. This is theological ground, where your beliefs will never be wrong.
But beliefs do not base themselves on evidence. They base themselves on faith. Faith that what a man wrote down was the word of God for example. There is no evidence that 6000 years of text remain the same today as when they were written, there is no evidence that they were anything but the words of great men.
So if your religious beliefs make you feel comfortable, then I can not disprove you. I have my own. I cannot prove them, and I base them purely on what makes me comfortable, and what I think is right.
But, some aspects of belief systems can be tested. The Flood, for example. You choose a very strange point earlier, Patriarch, to prove this. The sedimentary deposits at the top of the mountains.
You must first answer the riddle you've just set yourself. Mountain growth and indeed creation is observable. Plate Tectonics are observable and as close to scientific fact as is possible.
So what proof do you offer that these mountains were at their current levels when you claim the flood occured?
Also, why do we not see constant sedimentary deposits at the levels you claim? Why is there not a sudden extiction recordable during the time of humanity?
In order to see the things you appear to be seeing, Patriarch, do you believe that your God is testing you?
I await your response!
There are some very detailed and thoughtful rebuttals of ID, or neo-Creationism, which the book I'm currently reading references:
Matt Young and Taner Edis's 'Why Intelligent Design Fails', and William Dembski and Michael Ruse's 'Debating Design' (which is written by pro IDists, and still provides more anti-ID points than pro).
As stated before in this debate, your discussion (as reasoned, well thought out and easily the most rationally pro creationist as it is), is identical in layout to William Paley's description of the irreducible complexity of the eye in Natural Theology, and then Michael Behe's claims of the flaggelum of bacteria in Darwin's Black Box of 1996. You're making points that were made in a book published in 1802, which have been thoughtfully, thouroughly and exhaustively disproved, by finer minds than mine. So for every other example (in this case, the leg/arm to wing point), you're just making the same points that have been disproved time and time again.
I can see exactly where you're coming from. Everywhere you look you see organisms that look so perfect they must have been designed. You can read the biblical account and find matches to the world as it is today. You see the apparent designed nature of animals, and you, rather understandably, and perfectly rationally, come to the conclusion that if there is design, there must be a designer.
What scientific fields, (such as oceanography (waves appear to be going up and down, but are in reality going round and round), astrophysics (the sun appears to be going around the world, but it is the world that's going around it) geology (Mountains are apparently solid and immobile but move up and down on a large time scale basis),) have succesfully shown us is that just because it looks designed, the conclusion that it is designed is trite and shallow. It doesn't prove the statement wrong, but it does put a huge amount of doubt into the court of those in favour of the statement.
You yourself admit that evolution can happen at small levels, and so you can see that organisms can change over time. In order to continue this debate, We must agree that the evidence pointing to the universe being 12-14 billion years old and the world being 4.5 billion years old is currently, by modern scientific methods, so incontrovertible that we'd have to believe that we were deliberately being fooled by a God who made the world 6002 years ago (by James Ussher's calculations).
Once we can accept that, we can move on.
If we accept that figure, we can then from that figure show that the first records of life on this planet are from over a billion years ago (don't quote me on this figure, I've left the book at home).
The next step is to see how fast observable, small scale evolution can take place. As Doc showed earlier, its possible to show resistances to antibacterials evolve in a lab. Using Darwins finches, the process of 2 distinct lengths of beaks evolving from one can be observed year after year.
So if small changes can occur at such a high speed, over a few million years, those small changes can become huge ones. There are hypothetical and very plausible examples to this statement.
But it's not enough to say that changes are enough to create the wide variety of species we see on this planet. There must be something driving the changes in a creative direction. This is where it makes fairly naive sense to introduce God as someone making conscious and intelligent design choices. (If anyone's read The Last Continent by Terry Pratchett, The God Of Evolution is a prime example of this). Domestic animals and plants are chosen consciously by the breeder to breed in ways that produce desirable offspring. But as for early mammals, dinosaurs, amphibians etc. there was no human breeder, so something else must have driven the "selection process".
This is the Darwinian concept of Natural Selection. Competetion for resources, food and space drives the selection ever onwards. It cannot drive it backwards. So the process of Evolution continues in an apparently designed direction. It's not going towards anything, towards some perfect creation, instead each step is better for survival in the environment that caused the selection than the one before it.
Instead of being chosen intelligently, it is an emergent process.
It is a process created by the context which is created by the previous context etc. These contexts constantly interact, with random acts (for example a rockfall completely destroying a colony of predators in a small environment, or the arrival of one species in anothers environment), and climate change (even small scale things like an increase of rain over a period of years) influencing each contextual environment and driving evolution onwards.
This hopefully shows (weakly admittedly) the fact that Chimpanzees are not less evolved than us, instead that they have evolved in a different context to us and have. The same can be said for any 'modern' species. They have evolved in different contexts to others!
And there we have it, Darwinism in a nutshell.
It's obvious, and the Creationists have had 200 years to mould their ideas around it and insert God into it.
That's quite a simplistic view and doesn't explain a lot of things, including RNA, mitochondria and DNA, but this post is getting too long already. I'd suggest reading up on those areas in greater detail as they explain issues which my account is weak in, far better than I.
But, back to the point, Patriach:
Evolution doesn't have all the answers, but it is open to conventional scientific methods of proof and disproof. If, for an example, an ape was to be found in the precambrian era, then Evolution would be instantly and irreversibly be disproved. But it hasn't happened!
There are deep mysteries that are currently, and possibly will be permanently, unaccesible to scientific methods. This is religious grounds, where your beliefs will always be superior to my agnosticism. This is where answers lie within the "word of God" and science is silent. This is where you can pick and choose which ever belief system you feel comfortable with. This is theological ground, where your beliefs will never be wrong.
But beliefs do not base themselves on evidence. They base themselves on faith. Faith that what a man wrote down was the word of God for example. There is no evidence that 6000 years of text remain the same today as when they were written, there is no evidence that they were anything but the words of great men.
So if your religious beliefs make you feel comfortable, then I can not disprove you. I have my own. I cannot prove them, and I base them purely on what makes me comfortable, and what I think is right.
But, some aspects of belief systems can be tested. The Flood, for example. You choose a very strange point earlier, Patriarch, to prove this. The sedimentary deposits at the top of the mountains.
You must first answer the riddle you've just set yourself. Mountain growth and indeed creation is observable. Plate Tectonics are observable and as close to scientific fact as is possible.
So what proof do you offer that these mountains were at their current levels when you claim the flood occured?
Also, why do we not see constant sedimentary deposits at the levels you claim? Why is there not a sudden extiction recordable during the time of humanity?
In order to see the things you appear to be seeing, Patriarch, do you believe that your God is testing you?
I await your response!
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
DeletePatriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:Your explanation about flying squirrels is reasonable, but not exactly on point. Bats wings are not flaps between the front and back legs, they are flaps between fingers. If the webbed forepaws appeared in a single organism in a form large enough to let them glide, rather than just impeding their ability to walk, the theory of gradual evolution could indeed take over from there.
What I find hard to believe is the idea of the many transitional forms in between regular paws and gliding paws, where the webbed forepaws would have made it harder for them to run and jump, but not be big enough to give them extra lift. If such an organism were born, it would not likely be able to compete with the others. I dont know how to make the distinction any more clear.
I understand that I must believe that this happened, somehow, for every feature of every organism that has ever existed. From the eye of the trilobite to flagellum, every transitional form must be justified as being an improvement over the previous form. I just dont have enough faith to believe all this.
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
Im not calling the wing irreducibly complex since the original theoretical single celled organisms fit that bill too well to need any competition. However, there are two much simpler alternatives. First, some have theorized very rapid macroevolution (one day, a boy is simply born with wings that are capable of at least a little flight). Alternatively, you can believe that bats did not descend from ancestors that were radically different.
We have not found any fossilized brats, and it goes against what we see occurring now to think that an animal could slowly develop features that have no practical use for hundreds (or thousands) of generations.
I have great respect for the theory of evolution. I think that it is very clever, and it's proponents have done an admirable job of altering it when it is challenged by new discoveries. However, I have greater respect for the theory of creation, since it is more intutive, and no evidence has been found that would require any radical change in it's claims.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said stone people who do not follow the golden rule.
What I find hard to believe is the idea of the many transitional forms in between regular paws and gliding paws, where the webbed forepaws would have made it harder for them to run and jump, but not be big enough to give them extra lift. If such an organism were born, it would not likely be able to compete with the others. I dont know how to make the distinction any more clear.
I understand that I must believe that this happened, somehow, for every feature of every organism that has ever existed. From the eye of the trilobite to flagellum, every transitional form must be justified as being an improvement over the previous form. I just dont have enough faith to believe all this.
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
Im not calling the wing irreducibly complex since the original theoretical single celled organisms fit that bill too well to need any competition. However, there are two much simpler alternatives. First, some have theorized very rapid macroevolution (one day, a boy is simply born with wings that are capable of at least a little flight). Alternatively, you can believe that bats did not descend from ancestors that were radically different.
We have not found any fossilized brats, and it goes against what we see occurring now to think that an animal could slowly develop features that have no practical use for hundreds (or thousands) of generations.
I have great respect for the theory of evolution. I think that it is very clever, and it's proponents have done an admirable job of altering it when it is challenged by new discoveries. However, I have greater respect for the theory of creation, since it is more intutive, and no evidence has been found that would require any radical change in it's claims.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said stone people who do not follow the golden rule.
Delete
Posted:
"If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government officials they elect." (Richard Dawkins)
"If ID really were a scientific theory, positive evidence for it, gathered through research, would fill peer-reviewed scientific journals. This doesn't happen. It isn't that editors refuse to publish ID research. There simply isn't any ID research to publish. Its advocates bypass normal scientific due process by appealing directly to the non-scientific public and - with great shrewdness - to the government officials they elect." (Richard Dawkins)
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
DeleteDomino
SILVER Member since May 2004
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Total posts: 757
SILVER Member since May 2004
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Total posts: 757
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
I find hard to believe
This is not a valid argument. Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't make it untrue. I find it hard to believe Bush got voted in again. I find it hard to believe that a place with a name like Kuala Lumpur actually exists. I point blank refuse to believe that people enjoy eating stilton or drinking Irn Bru.
Written by: Patriarch917
We have not found any fossilized brats,
Only a small percentage of the animals that have ever been alive have ever been fossiled. It's a "lucky" creature that gets fossiled.
Written by: Patriarch917
I have great respect for the theory of evolution. I think that it is very clever, and it's proponents have done an admirable job of altering it when it is challenged by new discoveries.
Yes exactly. This is what the scientific method is. Theorys change and adjust as new evidence is uncovered and new things are learned rather than discounting or ignoring all evidence that goes against it
I find hard to believe
This is not a valid argument. Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't make it untrue. I find it hard to believe Bush got voted in again. I find it hard to believe that a place with a name like Kuala Lumpur actually exists. I point blank refuse to believe that people enjoy eating stilton or drinking Irn Bru.
Written by: Patriarch917
We have not found any fossilized brats,
Only a small percentage of the animals that have ever been alive have ever been fossiled. It's a "lucky" creature that gets fossiled.
Written by: Patriarch917
I have great respect for the theory of evolution. I think that it is very clever, and it's proponents have done an admirable job of altering it when it is challenged by new discoveries.
Yes exactly. This is what the scientific method is. Theorys change and adjust as new evidence is uncovered and new things are learned rather than discounting or ignoring all evidence that goes against it
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
DeletePosted:As for the argument that you can't fly with only half a wing, it is disproved by large numbers of very successful gliding animals, including mammals of many different kinds, lizards, frogs, snakes, and squids. Many different kinds of tree-dwelling animals have flaps of skin between their joints that really are fractional wings. If you fall out of a tree, any skin flap or flattening of the body that increases your surface area can save your life. And, however small or large your flaps may be, there must always be a critical height such that, if you fall from a tree of that height, your life would have been saved by just a little bit more surface area. Then, when your descendants have evolved that extra surface area, their lives would be saved by just a bit more still if they fell from trees of a slightly greater height. And so on by insensibly graded steps until, hundreds of generations later, we arrive at full wings
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
DeletePosted:Written by: Patriarch917
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
Exactly. Which is why humans will never fly under their own power. A rat like creature on the other hand...
Written by: Patriarch917
Written by: jeff(fake)
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said stone people who do not follow the golden rule.
That would be the standard punishment for disobeying Moses. Rascist fascist git he was.
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
Exactly. Which is why humans will never fly under their own power. A rat like creature on the other hand...
Written by: Patriarch917
Written by: jeff(fake)
Leveticus 19:19 and Leveticus 25:20
It also forbids the creation of donkeys.
Jeff, you have only proved my point. Anyone who looks up those scriptures will see that they do not proscribe stoning for the offenses. It is as if you claimed that Jesus said stone people who do not follow the golden rule.
That would be the standard punishment for disobeying Moses. Rascist fascist git he was.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeletePosted:Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God. But is there any evidence that evolution actually has happened? The answer is yes; the evidence is overwhelming. Millions of fossils are found in exactly the places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove the evolution theory
The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one single ancestor
It is surely far more reverent, as well as more scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value. All living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago
(Richard Dawkins)
The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one single ancestor
It is surely far more reverent, as well as more scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value. All living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago
(Richard Dawkins)
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
DeletePosted:As I said, belief does not base itself on evidence, and instead bases itself on faith. So, as Domino said, it's not a vaild argument. Regardless of what you believe, a hypothesis that opens itself up to rational scientific procedure and withstands arguments, changing with new discoveries, and still hasn't been disproved is 'better' than a hypothesis that doesn't open itself to scientific methods, refuses to change when confronted with contrary evidence and is based on belief.
And, for the bat wing thing, it's the same argument as both the eye and the skin flaps, and was refuted by the Pterodactyl link that was posted midway through the discussion.
Your beliefs are your own, but Mint Sauce's quote is a very good refutal of your ideas on creationism,
edit: By 'eck this is fast moving!
EDITED_BY: Drudwyn (1138835838)
And, for the bat wing thing, it's the same argument as both the eye and the skin flaps, and was refuted by the Pterodactyl link that was posted midway through the discussion.
Your beliefs are your own, but Mint Sauce's quote is a very good refutal of your ideas on creationism,
edit: By 'eck this is fast moving!
EDITED_BY: Drudwyn (1138835838)
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
DeletePosted:Think of the quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese.
yet wolf and Pekingese cant interbreed (it has been tried I cant find the article right now I will keep looking for it)
yet wolf and Pekingese cant interbreed (it has been tried I cant find the article right now I will keep looking for it)
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
DeletePosted:Written by: Mint Sauce
Think of the quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese.
yet wolf and Pekingese cant interbreed (it has been tried I cant find the article right now I will keep looking for it)
Nor can a chihuahua and a great dane, and they're supposed to be the same species.
Patriarch, perhaps your posts would be better suited to the Religion: A Mental Illness thread.
Think of the quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese.
yet wolf and Pekingese cant interbreed (it has been tried I cant find the article right now I will keep looking for it)
Nor can a chihuahua and a great dane, and they're supposed to be the same species.
Patriarch, perhaps your posts would be better suited to the Religion: A Mental Illness thread.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeletePosted:now Jeff what did I say about being insulting
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
DeleteTheBovrilMonkey
SILVER Member since Sep 2001
![TheBovrilMonkey]()
Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Total posts: 2629
SILVER Member since Sep 2001
Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Total posts: 2629
Posted:Written by:
Stuff about bats
From newscientist.com..
Rogue finger gene got bats airborne
I'm assuming here that creationists will start talking about interpretation of evidence again and dodging around any particularly difficult questions.
*sigh* it's like trying to hold a conversation with a rock.
Stuff about bats
From newscientist.com..
Rogue finger gene got bats airborne
I'm assuming here that creationists will start talking about interpretation of evidence again and dodging around any particularly difficult questions.
*sigh* it's like trying to hold a conversation with a rock.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
DeletePosted:I will retract my Pekingese statement I found the article I was thinking of and it was fox and wolf both from the same comman ancestry
That wolf and dog can be hybridized, while a fox and dog cannot, (Dr. Michael W. Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., Vice President, Bioethics, Humane Society of the United States. Affidavit)
That wolf and dog can be hybridized, while a fox and dog cannot, (Dr. Michael W. Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., Vice President, Bioethics, Humane Society of the United States. Affidavit)
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
DeletePatriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: Drudwyn
You yourself admit that evolution can happen at small levels, and so you can see that organisms can change over time. In order to continue this debate, We must agree that the evidence pointing to the universe being 12-14 billion years old and the world being 4.5 billion years old is currently, by modern scientific methods, so incontrovertible that we'd have to believe that we were deliberately being fooled by a God who made the world 6002 years ago (by James Ussher's calculations).
Once we can accept that, we can move on.
However, there is no incontrovertible evidence upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an incontrovertible meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is incontrovertible because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion.
Written by: Drudwyn
The next step is to see how fast observable, small scale evolution can take place. As Doc showed earlier, its possible to show resistances to antibacterials evolve in a lab. Using Darwins finches, the process of 2 distinct lengths of beaks evolving from one can be observed year after year.
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
Written by: Drudwyn
So if small changes can occur at such a high speed, over a few million years, those small changes can become huge ones. There are hypothetical and very plausible examples to this statement.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
Creationists believe in evolution, but not to that extent. I believe that rapid variation can occur, but that it is caused by a reorganizing and manifesting of pre-existing characteristics. Thus, a population of bacteria do not develop a resistance to a substance because of a new injection of information. The environment merely provoked the emergence of an existing trait.
Written by: Drudwyn
But, back to the point, Patriach:
Evolution doesn't have all the answers, but it is open to conventional scientific methods of proof and disproof. If, for an example, an ape was to be found in the precambrian era, then Evolution would be instantly and irreversibly be disproved. But it hasn't happened!
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasnt happened.
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasnt happened either.
There is no incontrovertible evidence that evolution can account for life on earth, and the suggestion that time and chance can account for the existence of life to begin with is so improbable that it cannot be accepted even as a scientific theory. It requires faith, pure and simple.
Written by: Drudwyn
But, some aspects of belief systems can be tested. The Flood, for example. You choose a very strange point earlier, Patriarch, to prove this. The sedimentary deposits at the top of the mountains.
You must first answer the riddle you've just set yourself. Mountain growth and indeed creation is observable. Plate Tectonics are observable and as close to scientific fact as is possible.
So what proof do you offer that these mountains were at their current levels when you claim the flood occured?
Also, why do we not see constant sedimentary deposits at the levels you claim? Why is there not a sudden extiction recordable during the time of humanity?
I do not think they were at their current levels when the flood occurred, and I am not sure why you would assume that I would think such a thing. The Bible says itself that the mountains were lifted up and the valleys sank down after the flood. The flood was not a gentle rising of water like the filling of a bathtub. The flood probably destroyed mountains, created new ones, shifted continents, and was likely accompanied by volcanic eruptions that caused an ice age. Constant sedimentary deposits would not have been the result of such a process. The main thing you would expect to find is evidence that at one point, every point on earth was under water. The other thing you would expect to find is lots of fossilized dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the earth.
Remember, I have the same evidence as you do, I just have a different set of starting assumptions, and therefore different interpretations. The perceived riddle is moot.
There is a sudden extinction recordable during the time of humanity. Aside from it being recorded by the bible, many ancient civilizations preserve a memory of the flood, and the subsequent dispersal. Look at recorded human history itself.
Evolutionists claim that humans have existed in their present form for, perhaps, 100,000 years (a rough estimate, Im sure). Yet to believe this, you must believe that for some reason basically nothing happened for 95,000 year. No writing, no buildings, no civilizations, no technological advancement. Then, suddenly, civilizations starts in the middle east, and everything booms from there. All subsequent human history basically goes back to that point and stops.
Sure, its possible to invent a different explanation. But an alternative theory doesnt disprove anything. I do not doubt the sincerity of people's faith in the ability of time and chance to account for everything, but this is a philosophical choice that is not demanded by the evidence.
You yourself admit that evolution can happen at small levels, and so you can see that organisms can change over time. In order to continue this debate, We must agree that the evidence pointing to the universe being 12-14 billion years old and the world being 4.5 billion years old is currently, by modern scientific methods, so incontrovertible that we'd have to believe that we were deliberately being fooled by a God who made the world 6002 years ago (by James Ussher's calculations).
Once we can accept that, we can move on.
However, there is no incontrovertible evidence upon which to base that belief. There are only disputed claims and interpretations of evidence. One cannot simply insist that we must agree that a certain evidence has an incontrovertible meaning, and it is of no help to claim that something is incontrovertible because certain people believe it. Since I do not accept the starting assumption, I cannot come to the same conclusion.
Written by: Drudwyn
The next step is to see how fast observable, small scale evolution can take place. As Doc showed earlier, its possible to show resistances to antibacterials evolve in a lab. Using Darwins finches, the process of 2 distinct lengths of beaks evolving from one can be observed year after year.
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
Written by: Drudwyn
So if small changes can occur at such a high speed, over a few million years, those small changes can become huge ones. There are hypothetical and very plausible examples to this statement.
The small changes can occur rapidly, but to infer that big changes can occur assumes processes that have not been demonstrated. For instance, you must believe that new beneficial genetic information can be added through a mutation.
Creationists believe in evolution, but not to that extent. I believe that rapid variation can occur, but that it is caused by a reorganizing and manifesting of pre-existing characteristics. Thus, a population of bacteria do not develop a resistance to a substance because of a new injection of information. The environment merely provoked the emergence of an existing trait.
Written by: Drudwyn
But, back to the point, Patriach:
Evolution doesn't have all the answers, but it is open to conventional scientific methods of proof and disproof. If, for an example, an ape was to be found in the precambrian era, then Evolution would be instantly and irreversibly be disproved. But it hasn't happened!
And if dogs were to randomly mutate and receive an injection of new information that changed them into a different kind of animal, Creation would be instantly and irreversibly disproved. But this hasnt happened.
If a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order, this would cast serious doubt on Creation and be a considerable bump to evolution, but this hasnt happened either.
There is no incontrovertible evidence that evolution can account for life on earth, and the suggestion that time and chance can account for the existence of life to begin with is so improbable that it cannot be accepted even as a scientific theory. It requires faith, pure and simple.
Written by: Drudwyn
But, some aspects of belief systems can be tested. The Flood, for example. You choose a very strange point earlier, Patriarch, to prove this. The sedimentary deposits at the top of the mountains.
You must first answer the riddle you've just set yourself. Mountain growth and indeed creation is observable. Plate Tectonics are observable and as close to scientific fact as is possible.
So what proof do you offer that these mountains were at their current levels when you claim the flood occured?
Also, why do we not see constant sedimentary deposits at the levels you claim? Why is there not a sudden extiction recordable during the time of humanity?
I do not think they were at their current levels when the flood occurred, and I am not sure why you would assume that I would think such a thing. The Bible says itself that the mountains were lifted up and the valleys sank down after the flood. The flood was not a gentle rising of water like the filling of a bathtub. The flood probably destroyed mountains, created new ones, shifted continents, and was likely accompanied by volcanic eruptions that caused an ice age. Constant sedimentary deposits would not have been the result of such a process. The main thing you would expect to find is evidence that at one point, every point on earth was under water. The other thing you would expect to find is lots of fossilized dead things buried in rock layers that had been laid down by water all over the earth.
Remember, I have the same evidence as you do, I just have a different set of starting assumptions, and therefore different interpretations. The perceived riddle is moot.
There is a sudden extinction recordable during the time of humanity. Aside from it being recorded by the bible, many ancient civilizations preserve a memory of the flood, and the subsequent dispersal. Look at recorded human history itself.
Evolutionists claim that humans have existed in their present form for, perhaps, 100,000 years (a rough estimate, Im sure). Yet to believe this, you must believe that for some reason basically nothing happened for 95,000 year. No writing, no buildings, no civilizations, no technological advancement. Then, suddenly, civilizations starts in the middle east, and everything booms from there. All subsequent human history basically goes back to that point and stops.
Sure, its possible to invent a different explanation. But an alternative theory doesnt disprove anything. I do not doubt the sincerity of people's faith in the ability of time and chance to account for everything, but this is a philosophical choice that is not demanded by the evidence.
Delete
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
Your explanation about flying squirrels is reasonable, but not exactly on point. Bats wings are not flaps between the front and back legs, they are flaps between fingers. If the webbed forepaws appeared in a single organism in a form large enough to let them glide, rather than just impeding their ability to walk, the theory of gradual evolution could indeed take over from there.
What I find hard to believe is the idea of the many transitional forms in between regular paws and gliding paws, where the webbed forepaws would have made it harder for them to run and jump, but not be big enough to give them extra lift. If such an organism were born, it would not likely be able to compete with the others. I don’t know how to make the distinction any more clear.
I understand that I must believe that this happened, somehow, for every feature of every organism that has ever existed. From the eye of the trilobite to flagellum, every transitional form must be justified as being an improvement over the previous form. I just don’t have enough faith to believe all this.
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
I think you're intellignet enough to know that your example of human finger flaps is highly weighted- however big human finger flaps got, flight would still be inpossible due to the weight of a human being.
As pointed out in a previous post, substitute 'tree-living frog' (or a number of other small creatures- possibly even 'bat-like 'ones?) and suddenly it's obvious how rudimentary finger webs can evolve into gliding wings, and then on to full flapping flight wings.
Having addressed that point, could I now ask why, when your previous posts indicate you are an intelligent and versatile thinker, you have attempted to divert a line of argument by introducing such a weighted and irrelevant example (human finger webs)?
Was it a genuine mistake, or are you falling into the use of the distraction and evasion tactics that seem so prevalent amongst many of those who support creationism?
Your explanation about flying squirrels is reasonable, but not exactly on point. Bats wings are not flaps between the front and back legs, they are flaps between fingers. If the webbed forepaws appeared in a single organism in a form large enough to let them glide, rather than just impeding their ability to walk, the theory of gradual evolution could indeed take over from there.
What I find hard to believe is the idea of the many transitional forms in between regular paws and gliding paws, where the webbed forepaws would have made it harder for them to run and jump, but not be big enough to give them extra lift. If such an organism were born, it would not likely be able to compete with the others. I don’t know how to make the distinction any more clear.
I understand that I must believe that this happened, somehow, for every feature of every organism that has ever existed. From the eye of the trilobite to flagellum, every transitional form must be justified as being an improvement over the previous form. I just don’t have enough faith to believe all this.
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
I think you're intellignet enough to know that your example of human finger flaps is highly weighted- however big human finger flaps got, flight would still be inpossible due to the weight of a human being.
As pointed out in a previous post, substitute 'tree-living frog' (or a number of other small creatures- possibly even 'bat-like 'ones?) and suddenly it's obvious how rudimentary finger webs can evolve into gliding wings, and then on to full flapping flight wings.
Having addressed that point, could I now ask why, when your previous posts indicate you are an intelligent and versatile thinker, you have attempted to divert a line of argument by introducing such a weighted and irrelevant example (human finger webs)?
Was it a genuine mistake, or are you falling into the use of the distraction and evasion tactics that seem so prevalent amongst many of those who support creationism?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: TheBovrilMonkey
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />
Stuff about bats
From newscientist.com..
Rogue finger gene got bats airborne
I'm assuming here that creationists will start talking about interpretation of evidence again and dodging around any particularly difficult questions.
*sigh* it's like trying to hold a conversation with a rock.
I have to be pleased by the link about the bat wing that was posted. I had no idea that my opinion of the evolution of the bat wing was shared by proponents of evolution.
Bats have been an evolutionary enigma. Thats because the oldest fossil bats look remarkably like modern ones, each having wings formed from membranes stretched between long fingers, and ear structures designed for echolocation. No fossils of an animal intermediate between bats and their non-flying mammal ancestors have been found.
They also say that they have never had an adequate explanation for the sudden appearance of bats.
The article goes on to explain that (through intelligent design) a bat protein could be put in mice that would elongate their fingers.
It is believed that this could have happened in a radical way by a chance mutation, eliminating the need for a gradual series of transitional forms. This vindicates what I said in the earlier posts, you either need to believe that bat wings sprang up almost immediately in a fully functional form, or you can believe that they were intelligently designed.
The experimental data proves that intelligent design might be able to produce a small change in an organism. Does it then follow that random chance can produce a much larger, better change? You may choose to believe so. To me, this is like saying because we can carve a statue out of stone, random chance can probably produce the Eiffel tower. Its far fetched, but its interesting to consider.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />
Stuff about bats
From newscientist.com..
Rogue finger gene got bats airborne
I'm assuming here that creationists will start talking about interpretation of evidence again and dodging around any particularly difficult questions.
*sigh* it's like trying to hold a conversation with a rock.
I have to be pleased by the link about the bat wing that was posted. I had no idea that my opinion of the evolution of the bat wing was shared by proponents of evolution.
Bats have been an evolutionary enigma. Thats because the oldest fossil bats look remarkably like modern ones, each having wings formed from membranes stretched between long fingers, and ear structures designed for echolocation. No fossils of an animal intermediate between bats and their non-flying mammal ancestors have been found.
They also say that they have never had an adequate explanation for the sudden appearance of bats.
The article goes on to explain that (through intelligent design) a bat protein could be put in mice that would elongate their fingers.
It is believed that this could have happened in a radical way by a chance mutation, eliminating the need for a gradual series of transitional forms. This vindicates what I said in the earlier posts, you either need to believe that bat wings sprang up almost immediately in a fully functional form, or you can believe that they were intelligently designed.
The experimental data proves that intelligent design might be able to produce a small change in an organism. Does it then follow that random chance can produce a much larger, better change? You may choose to believe so. To me, this is like saying because we can carve a statue out of stone, random chance can probably produce the Eiffel tower. Its far fetched, but its interesting to consider.
Delete
TheBovrilMonkey
SILVER Member since Sep 2001
![TheBovrilMonkey]()
Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Total posts: 2629
SILVER Member since Sep 2001
Liquid Cow
Location: High Wycombe, England
Total posts: 2629
Posted:Written by: Patriarch917
It is believed that this could have happened in a radical way by a chance mutation, eliminating the need for a gradual series of transitional forms. This vindicates what I said in the earlier posts, you either need to believe that bat wings sprang up almost immediately in a fully functional form, or you can believe that they were intelligently designed.
Why is it so hard to think that bat wings did indeed spring up like that?
If, as that article suggests, the wings were only controlled by a single gene, it'd be relatively easy for the wings to appear, it only takes one random mutation.
It's already been proved in labs that the theory of random mutation causing new characteristics works (I've seen this in person, so don't try to pass this off as unproven), why should it only apply to microbes when the basic mechanics are pretty much the same for all creatures?
edit...
Written by:
To me, this is like saying because we can carve a statue out of stone, random chance can probably produce the Eiffel tower. Its far fetched, but its interesting to consider.
Give it enough time and raw material and I'm certain that random chance can produce the Eiffel tower.
Really though, did you actually get anywhere close to considering it, or did you dismiss it out of hand like almost everything else in this thread?
EDITED_BY: TheBovrilMonkey (1138842449)
It is believed that this could have happened in a radical way by a chance mutation, eliminating the need for a gradual series of transitional forms. This vindicates what I said in the earlier posts, you either need to believe that bat wings sprang up almost immediately in a fully functional form, or you can believe that they were intelligently designed.
Why is it so hard to think that bat wings did indeed spring up like that?
If, as that article suggests, the wings were only controlled by a single gene, it'd be relatively easy for the wings to appear, it only takes one random mutation.
It's already been proved in labs that the theory of random mutation causing new characteristics works (I've seen this in person, so don't try to pass this off as unproven), why should it only apply to microbes when the basic mechanics are pretty much the same for all creatures?
edit...
Written by:
To me, this is like saying because we can carve a statue out of stone, random chance can probably produce the Eiffel tower. Its far fetched, but its interesting to consider.
Give it enough time and raw material and I'm certain that random chance can produce the Eiffel tower.
Really though, did you actually get anywhere close to considering it, or did you dismiss it out of hand like almost everything else in this thread?
EDITED_BY: TheBovrilMonkey (1138842449)
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
DeletePosted:Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
But that's the point I was trying to make. Bacteria with the mutation that allowed them to survive were favoured! Natural Selection is Evolution. Or at least a part of it.
It is time to go to bed for me, so I'll leave you with this.
I do notice, however, that in almost every single point you made against mine, you use the word "believe" or "faith".
Neither of these words have a place in a scientific discussion, because they can neither be proved or disproved. That, is the centre of the entire discussion, that ID should not be taught in schools in a science class room.
All of my points were backed up with large amounts of scientific process and evidence, while yours are based on your beliefs.
Therefore I cannot argue with you.
I am thoroughly impressed by your resolve, Patriarch, but I'm afraid the evidence, is weighted exceptionally against you. Look up all the centuries of scientific thought on the age of the planet, its geology, the decomposition of Carbon-14, and how ages can be deduced from that.
Oh and one more thing, what do you think the fossil record is if not "a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order"?
That one baffled me.
Believe what you will, I'll stick to believing that God would not test his loyal followers to the level he evidently is!
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
But that's the point I was trying to make. Bacteria with the mutation that allowed them to survive were favoured! Natural Selection is Evolution. Or at least a part of it.
It is time to go to bed for me, so I'll leave you with this.
I do notice, however, that in almost every single point you made against mine, you use the word "believe" or "faith".
Neither of these words have a place in a scientific discussion, because they can neither be proved or disproved. That, is the centre of the entire discussion, that ID should not be taught in schools in a science class room.
All of my points were backed up with large amounts of scientific process and evidence, while yours are based on your beliefs.
Therefore I cannot argue with you.
I am thoroughly impressed by your resolve, Patriarch, but I'm afraid the evidence, is weighted exceptionally against you. Look up all the centuries of scientific thought on the age of the planet, its geology, the decomposition of Carbon-14, and how ages can be deduced from that.
Oh and one more thing, what do you think the fossil record is if not "a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order"?
That one baffled me.
Believe what you will, I'll stick to believing that God would not test his loyal followers to the level he evidently is!
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
DeletePosted:Patriarch: Why would whoever is designing these things do so by changing them?
Say you have a plan for how the world is constructed. You make the world. It does not include bats. Why then would you think "Oh bugger, I forgot to put something in ecological niche X, lets give this rodent wings by modifying it's DNA and calling it a Bat."
Surely if you're God, then you don't need to modify your own ineffable plan? Surely you're omniscient? Why (after a prolonged period of time) would you inject wing DNA into rodents? Apart from the obvious amusement that would result from watching them try to run with big wings that they don't know how to use...
Also, note the use of the past tense in the article. They previously had no viable explanation for bat wings. Now they do. There is no more mystery about their sudden apparition.
EDITED_BY: Sethis (1138842934)
Say you have a plan for how the world is constructed. You make the world. It does not include bats. Why then would you think "Oh bugger, I forgot to put something in ecological niche X, lets give this rodent wings by modifying it's DNA and calling it a Bat."
Surely if you're God, then you don't need to modify your own ineffable plan? Surely you're omniscient? Why (after a prolonged period of time) would you inject wing DNA into rodents? Apart from the obvious amusement that would result from watching them try to run with big wings that they don't know how to use...
Also, note the use of the past tense in the article. They previously had no viable explanation for bat wings. Now they do. There is no more mystery about their sudden apparition.
EDITED_BY: Sethis (1138842934)
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave
Written by: Patriarch917
Your explanation about flying squirrels is reasonable, but not exactly on point. Bats wings are not flaps between the front and back legs, they are flaps between fingers. If the webbed forepaws appeared in a single organism in a form large enough to let them glide, rather than just impeding their ability to walk, the theory of gradual evolution could indeed take over from there.
What I find hard to believe is the idea of the many transitional forms in between regular paws and gliding paws, where the webbed forepaws would have made it harder for them to run and jump, but not be big enough to give them extra lift. If such an organism were born, it would not likely be able to compete with the others. I don’t know how to make the distinction any more clear.
I understand that I must believe that this happened, somehow, for every feature of every organism that has ever existed. From the eye of the trilobite to flagellum, every transitional form must be justified as being an improvement over the previous form. I just don’t have enough faith to believe all this.
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
I think you're intellignet enough to know that your example of human finger flaps is highly weighted- however big human finger flaps got, flight would still be inpossible due to the weight of a human being.
As pointed out in a previous post, substitute 'tree-living frog' (or a number of other small creatures- possibly even 'bat-like 'ones?) and suddenly it's obvious how rudimentary finger webs can evolve into gliding wings, and then on to full flapping flight wings.
Having addressed that point, could I now ask why, when your previous posts indicate you are an intelligent and versatile thinker, you have attempted to divert a line of argument by introducing such a weighted and irrelevant example (human finger webs)?
Was it a genuine mistake, or are you falling into the use of the distraction and evasion tactics that seem so prevalent amongst many of those who support creationism?
Your right, I did use a slightly weighted example, but no more weighted than your use of the flying squirrel. Argument by analogy worked fine for that discussion, especially since I was trying to express my reaction to the theory. I picked an example which made it seem a little more silly to get you to try to see things from my view. You used an example that helped me see things from your view (flying squirrels).
When choosing an analogy, I specifically avoided things that obviously had no resemblance (horse, jellyfish), but I wanted to pick something with fingers that could develop webbing. My first thought was a mouse, but this seemed to similar to a rat. Humans were the next thing I could think of with fingers, so I went with it.
I think we both accomplished our goals, Im sure I helped you see a little more from my perspective, and you certainly made me understand how someone could believe it was perfectly reasonable. I do not see anything underhanded about the way we approached it, but then I saw it as a discussion of whether bat wing evolution seemed plausible, not whether it was true.
I think my post on the article link pretty much ends my discussion on the particular subject for now.
Written by: Drudwyn
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
But that's the point I was trying to make. Bacteria with the mutation that allowed them to survive were favoured! Natural Selection is Evolution. Or at least a part of it.
It is time to go to bed for me, so I'll leave you with this.
I do notice, however, that in almost every single point you made against mine, you use the word "believe" or "faith".
Neither of these words have a place in a scientific discussion, because they can neither be proved or disproved. That, is the centre of the entire discussion, that ID should not be taught in schools in a science class room.
All of my points were backed up with large amounts of scientific process and evidence, while yours are based on your beliefs.
Therefore I cannot argue with you.
I am thoroughly impressed by your resolve, Patriarch, but I'm afraid the evidence, is weighted exceptionally against you. Look up all the centuries of scientific thought on the age of the planet, its geology, the decomposition of Carbon-14, and how ages can be deduced from that.
Oh and one more thing, what do you think the fossil record is if not "a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order"?
That one baffled me.
Believe what you will, I'll stick to believing that God would not test his loyal followers to the level he evidently is!
This post brings up points that I have already addressed earlier in the thread, in detail. Reread them if you wish to see my answers regarding Carbon-14, the fossil record, and how they are interpreted.
I do not disagree with the evidence, I disagree with the assumptions and beliefs that are used to interpret evidence. I succinctly addressed all of the main points of your post. If you disagree with me, or have new points to bring up that I havent discussed, I would be happy to discuss. To say that the evidence is weighted against you, or my views are based on science and yours are based on faith is a valid opinion, but one that requires no reply. My goal is to stick to evaluating assumptions, and discussing different ways to interpret the same evidence.
Written by: Sethis
Patriarch: Why would whoever is designing these things do so by changing them?
Say you have a plan for how the world is constructed. You make the world. It does not include bats. Why then would you think "Oh bugger, I forgot to put something in ecological niche X, lets give this rodent wings by modifying it's DNA and calling it a Bat."
Surely if you're God, then you don't need to modify your own ineffable plan? Surely you're omniscient? Why (after a prolonged period of time) would you inject wing DNA into rodents? Apart from the obvious amusement that would result from watching them try to run with big wings that they don't know how to use...
Also, note the use of the past tense in the article. They previously had no viable explanation for bat wings. Now they do. There is no more mystery about their sudden apparition.
I do not believe that God created bats by changing a previous type of animal. I believe the second of my two options: bats were created as bats.
There is still great mystery about the sudden apparition. Just because you can take a protein out of a bat and use it to make a mouse grow slightly longer fingers doesnt mean that the bats came from a rat like ancestor. This does nothing to explain where the new protein came from, or why the elongated fingers were an advantage worth keeping. The experiment proves nothing more than intelligent design is capable of producing mice with longer fingers. Any further conclusion requires quite a leap of faith.
They basically assert a theory of macroevolution, that a rat gave birth to a bat with a reasonably functional wing. Such a change occurring rapidly is far less probable than, say, Mt. Rushmore occurring by chance.
In the end, they agree with me that gradual evolution over many generations cannot account for bat wings. Either they were created that way originally, something intelligent changed them, or they were changed by chance. They believe the last option, I believe the first, others may fall in the middle.
Written by: Patriarch917
Your explanation about flying squirrels is reasonable, but not exactly on point. Bats wings are not flaps between the front and back legs, they are flaps between fingers. If the webbed forepaws appeared in a single organism in a form large enough to let them glide, rather than just impeding their ability to walk, the theory of gradual evolution could indeed take over from there.
What I find hard to believe is the idea of the many transitional forms in between regular paws and gliding paws, where the webbed forepaws would have made it harder for them to run and jump, but not be big enough to give them extra lift. If such an organism were born, it would not likely be able to compete with the others. I don’t know how to make the distinction any more clear.
I understand that I must believe that this happened, somehow, for every feature of every organism that has ever existed. From the eye of the trilobite to flagellum, every transitional form must be justified as being an improvement over the previous form. I just don’t have enough faith to believe all this.
Imagine if we humans were to try to undergo the same changes. One day, a boy is born with webbed hands. Assume for a moment that the mutation can be passed down to his children, and that eventually there is a whole population of people with webbed hands.
Later, one of those people gets hands with even more webbing. Repeat this for a million years, with more and more webbing.
How big will those hands have to get before people can glide on them? What useful purpose is the webbing serving for the transitional people in the mean-time, that make them outbreed the non-mutants?
Yes, a creative sci-fi author might be able to invent an explanation for all of these transitional forms, but the idea is a bit far fetched.
I think you're intellignet enough to know that your example of human finger flaps is highly weighted- however big human finger flaps got, flight would still be inpossible due to the weight of a human being.
As pointed out in a previous post, substitute 'tree-living frog' (or a number of other small creatures- possibly even 'bat-like 'ones?) and suddenly it's obvious how rudimentary finger webs can evolve into gliding wings, and then on to full flapping flight wings.
Having addressed that point, could I now ask why, when your previous posts indicate you are an intelligent and versatile thinker, you have attempted to divert a line of argument by introducing such a weighted and irrelevant example (human finger webs)?
Was it a genuine mistake, or are you falling into the use of the distraction and evasion tactics that seem so prevalent amongst many of those who support creationism?
Your right, I did use a slightly weighted example, but no more weighted than your use of the flying squirrel.
Argument by analogy worked fine for that discussion, especially since I was trying to express my reaction to the theory. I picked an example which made it seem a little more silly to get you to try to see things from my view. You used an example that helped me see things from your view (flying squirrels).When choosing an analogy, I specifically avoided things that obviously had no resemblance (horse, jellyfish), but I wanted to pick something with fingers that could develop webbing. My first thought was a mouse, but this seemed to similar to a rat. Humans were the next thing I could think of with fingers, so I went with it.
I think we both accomplished our goals, Im sure I helped you see a little more from my perspective, and you certainly made me understand how someone could believe it was perfectly reasonable. I do not see anything underhanded about the way we approached it, but then I saw it as a discussion of whether bat wing evolution seemed plausible, not whether it was true.
I think my post on the article link pretty much ends my discussion on the particular subject for now.
Written by: Drudwyn
Written by: Patriarch917
You are mistaken. Doc cannot show evolution in a lab. Doc can merely bring out an existing trait that was already there. Natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.
But that's the point I was trying to make. Bacteria with the mutation that allowed them to survive were favoured! Natural Selection is Evolution. Or at least a part of it.
It is time to go to bed for me, so I'll leave you with this.
I do notice, however, that in almost every single point you made against mine, you use the word "believe" or "faith".
Neither of these words have a place in a scientific discussion, because they can neither be proved or disproved. That, is the centre of the entire discussion, that ID should not be taught in schools in a science class room.
All of my points were backed up with large amounts of scientific process and evidence, while yours are based on your beliefs.
Therefore I cannot argue with you.
I am thoroughly impressed by your resolve, Patriarch, but I'm afraid the evidence, is weighted exceptionally against you. Look up all the centuries of scientific thought on the age of the planet, its geology, the decomposition of Carbon-14, and how ages can be deduced from that.
Oh and one more thing, what do you think the fossil record is if not "a series of fossilized transitional forms manifesting an addition of genetic information were found buried in a descending order"?
That one baffled me.
Believe what you will, I'll stick to believing that God would not test his loyal followers to the level he evidently is!
This post brings up points that I have already addressed earlier in the thread, in detail. Reread them if you wish to see my answers regarding Carbon-14, the fossil record, and how they are interpreted.
I do not disagree with the evidence, I disagree with the assumptions and beliefs that are used to interpret evidence. I succinctly addressed all of the main points of your post. If you disagree with me, or have new points to bring up that I havent discussed, I would be happy to discuss. To say that the evidence is weighted against you, or my views are based on science and yours are based on faith is a valid opinion, but one that requires no reply. My goal is to stick to evaluating assumptions, and discussing different ways to interpret the same evidence.
Written by: Sethis
Patriarch: Why would whoever is designing these things do so by changing them?
Say you have a plan for how the world is constructed. You make the world. It does not include bats. Why then would you think "Oh bugger, I forgot to put something in ecological niche X, lets give this rodent wings by modifying it's DNA and calling it a Bat."
Surely if you're God, then you don't need to modify your own ineffable plan? Surely you're omniscient? Why (after a prolonged period of time) would you inject wing DNA into rodents? Apart from the obvious amusement that would result from watching them try to run with big wings that they don't know how to use...
Also, note the use of the past tense in the article. They previously had no viable explanation for bat wings. Now they do. There is no more mystery about their sudden apparition.
I do not believe that God created bats by changing a previous type of animal. I believe the second of my two options: bats were created as bats.
There is still great mystery about the sudden apparition. Just because you can take a protein out of a bat and use it to make a mouse grow slightly longer fingers doesnt mean that the bats came from a rat like ancestor. This does nothing to explain where the new protein came from, or why the elongated fingers were an advantage worth keeping. The experiment proves nothing more than intelligent design is capable of producing mice with longer fingers. Any further conclusion requires quite a leap of faith.
They basically assert a theory of macroevolution, that a rat gave birth to a bat with a reasonably functional wing. Such a change occurring rapidly is far less probable than, say, Mt. Rushmore occurring by chance.
In the end, they agree with me that gradual evolution over many generations cannot account for bat wings. Either they were created that way originally, something intelligent changed them, or they were changed by chance. They believe the last option, I believe the first, others may fall in the middle.
Delete
Posted:Written by: Patriarch
This does nothing to explain where the new protein came from
The protein is ingested and used by the body in response to the genetic code, which has a small mutation that says "make more protein for bones X, Y + Z". That's like saying "Where does the calcium that builds our bones come from?" We eat it. It is then digested and used in accordance with our DNA codes.
Written by: Patriarch
why the elongated fingers were an advantage worth keeping
Elongated fingers have several benefits worth keeping. Longer reach for one, the ability to hold onto larger objects e.g. tree branches is another. Bats (in the early stages of their evolution anyway) would also be superior to rats in Piano playing and pickpocketing.
Written by: Patriarch
The experiment proves nothing more than intelligent design is capable of producing mice with longer fingers
Wrong. It proves that naturally occuring genetic mutation can create beneficial changes to a creature's DNA.
This does nothing to explain where the new protein came from
The protein is ingested and used by the body in response to the genetic code, which has a small mutation that says "make more protein for bones X, Y + Z". That's like saying "Where does the calcium that builds our bones come from?" We eat it. It is then digested and used in accordance with our DNA codes.
Written by: Patriarch
why the elongated fingers were an advantage worth keeping
Elongated fingers have several benefits worth keeping. Longer reach for one, the ability to hold onto larger objects e.g. tree branches is another. Bats (in the early stages of their evolution anyway) would also be superior to rats in Piano playing and pickpocketing.
Written by: Patriarch
The experiment proves nothing more than intelligent design is capable of producing mice with longer fingers
Wrong. It proves that naturally occuring genetic mutation can create beneficial changes to a creature's DNA.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted:Written by: Sethis
Written by: Patriarch
The experiment proves nothing more than intelligent design is capable of producing mice with longer fingers
Wrong. It proves that naturally occuring genetic mutation can create beneficial changes to a creature's DNA.
No, it proves that an intelligently designed alteration can change the fingers of mice.
You interpret this as meaning that it is possible for a chance mutation to do the same. This is as if I were to say "I have created a web page, therefore web pages can occur by chance."
Edit: BTW, the protien's production is produced by a gene. It kind of sounds like you were implying it came from the environment. I'm sure this isn't what you meant.
Written by: Patriarch
The experiment proves nothing more than intelligent design is capable of producing mice with longer fingers
Wrong. It proves that naturally occuring genetic mutation can create beneficial changes to a creature's DNA.
No, it proves that an intelligently designed alteration can change the fingers of mice.
You interpret this as meaning that it is possible for a chance mutation to do the same. This is as if I were to say "I have created a web page, therefore web pages can occur by chance."
Edit: BTW, the protien's production is produced by a gene. It kind of sounds like you were implying it came from the environment. I'm sure this isn't what you meant.
Delete
Posted:Patriarch: What would it take, or what proof would you require that showed beyond all possible doubt that evolution does happen and will continue to happen, and it was, has and never will be God that is designing everything?
If that is the case....
on a side note: What exactly is undoubtable proof? Why, just because someone "shows" that something is real, why then does one believe it?
If that is the case....
on a side note: What exactly is undoubtable proof? Why, just because someone "shows" that something is real, why then does one believe it?
Delete
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [intelligent design v* evolution] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
2. Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [874 replies]
3. Forums > need your help/opinion [14 replies]
4. Forums > Burning Man 09' Evolution [17 replies]
5. Forums > 5/19 The Next Evolution Sideshow
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.