Something I found on creationscience.com

LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution?changes in size, shape, and color?or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

Here is a simple point on how reatarded and stupid and oversimplifying AND most importantly how intellectually devious the xtians are.

Macroevolution is change over time....relative long time. You cannot show macroevolution by breeding dogs.. idiots... it is impossible, you cannot apply the selective pressures necessary to select for genes that would change a dog into another species in the short amount of time a breeder has..it's impossible....the theists know this but will lie and tell you that because it is not observable in dogs then.. obviously GOD CREATED DOGS and here is even more evidence of this idiocracy...

the mechanisms involved in microevolution are the exact same mechanisms involved in macroevolution. But you have tospan this over thousands and millions of years. Species change and re-form to adapt to the ever changing environments due to natural selection, NOT selective breeding, in short, a form of natural genetic engineering.. you are also seeing it now with designer pet reptiles "pie bald" pythons, red bearded dragons etc.... so in essence to use dogs as an example to discredit evolution is just plain intellectually wrong. And to do so by the theists is not surprising seeing as they lie about everything else.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Help me understand this better.

All of the anti evolution information I've studied, very few at the moment - I'm on the beginning of my learning journey here, say that natural selection cannot create a new species no matter the amount of time.
Natural Selection is taught to be the very thing that preserves species. Adaptation occurs with genetic material already present often reverting back and forth as in the birds Darwin studied on the Gal. islands, and that is why evolutionists rely on mutations to support the theory.
They go on to say that genetic mutations are 1.) Always harmful (not beneficial) and 2.) that they don't provide new genetic material to accomplish the changing from one species to another. The mutations just rearrange, or omit existing genetic material. Mutations may grow a leg where it shouldn't be, but it won't form a new organ.

"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how?. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy."

Pierre-Paul Grass?, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 97, 98

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

Pierre-Paul Grass?, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88.

What is the standard evolutionist rebuttal for this claim? Is this out dated? How so? Please don't yell at me, or put me down, or call me stupid, or ignorant. Just respond rationally and help me learn.

Also... Sorry but I didn't understand the part about the pets. What are we seeing in these pets now? Were you saying that we are seeing them evolve into a new species or adapting to changing environments? Or both?

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

neither.

every argument you listed does not take into account the fact that life on earth is a few hundred million years old.

the simplest evidence, to me, that evolution took place is in fossil evidence- for example the development of the horse, and of homo sapiens. undeniable, irrefutable rock solid proof. unless god put the fossils there to test our faith :/

another example of microevolution: goldfish mutate easily- natural carp lay thousands of eggs, sometimes, some af the fry are mutated. the japanese used this phenomenon as well as selective breeding to make them grow bubbly eyes, split and forked tails, unnatural colors etc. (microevolution).

now heres the interesting part: these common goldfish carp that these goldfish were bred from, do not occur naturally in south africa- but we now have populations of the natural form in several dams and rivers across south africa! how? little jimmy gets a goldfish for his birthday- grows tired of it, and releases it into a nearby dam (or toilet). the fish find eachother and breed- obviously, brightly coloured, slow moving fish will not survive as easily in a natural environment as the natural form, which is streamlined, dull colours, bigger, etc. the species soon converges back to the natural form due to natural selection.

i bet if you put 50 different species of dogs in the wild you'd get something like a dingo pretty soon...


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:
i bet if you put 50 different species of dogs in the wild you'd get something like a dingo pretty soon...

That was a good one...

If you ever debate theists or anti-evolutionists, try to use precisely their "How do you explain that, huh?" argument against them.

And what I've had in mind for this one is the problem of water mammals (whales, dolphins, etc.). Now... considering the Creationist thing, would anyone PLEASE explain why these creatures (VERY visible at whales, due to size) have some eerie bones at the back of their abdomen that are unused, just staying there, and that look like... would you believe it... legs ? What would possibly the purpose of that ? Dump the "God testing us" argument, as, according to the Bible, you are not allowed to open a dead body, be it human or animal, in order to perform any medicine operation on it, so you will not SEE those bones... And also, by that time, Jews weren't hunting whales for food, I'm certain of that... And it's pretty damn hard to kill a whale as welleven under present circumstances.

So just ask that and see what answers you get.

It is impossible to ask for a creature, be it human or animal, to react instantly to any drastic environmental changes. There are certain things that the body reacts to: you're in a disco, loud music and such, your ears adapt to it and it won't bother you in a matter of maybe half an hour. But if you hear a blast from a Magnum right next to your ear, that most definitely WILL shred your drums... Macroevolution and environmental adaptation does take time... a whole lot of time... and genetics plays a very important role in it. It's nobody's fault that we can't live 10000 years in order to observe it.

Also, on a different matter: mutation can cause evolution, contrary to what Pierre-Paul Grass? stated. There's been an experiment about 7 years ago with bacteria... We know that the number and shape of chromosomes can and does accidentally change (consider the Down syndrome, the Cri-du-chat syndrome and many others). There is a chance (very low, but there is) that such a mutation can cause a positive effect, thus creating a new species. The platypus is presumed to have evolved such. It's like the comparison most theists really love to say when they disagree with spontaneous life generation: "If you put a plane's parts into a hangar, and a tornado goes in, would it place the plane parts in such a perfect order that they will form a functional plane?" The answer is most probably not, but there is a chance of 1 in 1xE712 for it to actually do it. Very low chance, but there is one.

Quote:
As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.

Quote:
They go on to say that genetic mutations are 1.) Always harmful (not beneficial)

True, but it only applies to DEVELOPED organisms. Most genetical mutations in the body are harmless even if they remain and are transmitted (there is a "tolerance" system built in the gene pool, by which the same protein can be coded by many different similar combinations of 3 genes; if one of the genes mutates from A to T in a valid combination, for example, the same substance is produced as a result, therefore: no problem at all), some are actually positive (the split muscles syndrome or the troll syndrome), but they all occur in the egg cell... whatever occurs in a developed body must occur in all cells at the same time, otherwise cells will stop recognising each other and consume their neighbours (fagocitosis cancer).

Hope to have proved my point.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:

i bet if you put 50 different species of dogs in the wild you'd get something like a dingo pretty soon...

OH MY FACK im an idiot! LOL 50 different species of dogs??
i meant 50 breeds/ variants whats teh word again?


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

The premise or foundation of these arguments is wrong to begin with AND purposefully intellectually dishonest to shut down evolutionary theory.

Natural Selection, does not necessarily preserve species, it can, if the conditions are right....but more importantly what it does is that it guides evolution of species based on selective pressures. It SELECTS certain traits over others or preserves certain traits over others based on selective pressures (ie..predation, food procurement, temperature, arboreal vs. fossorial life etc..) Mutations occur all the time...there are mutations happening right now..in your own body. If these mutations are unfavorable, natural selection, will undoubtedly make sure they do not reproduce. Keep in mind also that Natural Selection works on many levels from Macro to Micro.....

What most creationsts do not take into account, as said, over and over, is that the earth is so old that over time various selective pressures on various organisms have produced, based on the various mutations, the diversity of life we have today; which is all related on both physical and biochemical levels. All organs of all organisms share in function and physical attributes they are all modified. A rhino's horn, for example is nothing but thightly packed hair, not a new organ. A Chameleon's tongue, is just that a modified tongue, Scales on reptiles are made of keratin, the same substance human hair, skin and fingernails are composed of, we have a coccyx, which is a vestige of a tail, a dolphin's flippers or a bat's wing, have 5 "fingers". The fossil record clearly shows the "relative" slow evolution of various species. We will not find all teh missing "links" however, we have more than enough justification.

Keep in mind also that there are not only genetic mechanisms at work here but also epigenetic mechanisms..that function to silence genes etc..under certain selective conditions. So the gene is passed on to the next generation, however it may never be expressed, based on natural pressures.

The theory of Natural Selection is simplified by the creatinosists...so that it fits comfortobaly in their little book. But even within their own arguments they contradict themselves....If the bible is the end all book, why do you not see any of these arguments within the bible? The answer is simple, back then they did not have the understanding of science as we know it today...and the bible, a book of stories, clearly fails to stand up to the scientific evidence of today. So what the creationsist are now cleverly doing is that they are tring to define biblical prophecy using big science words....that is contradictory within their own paradigm, as teh bible clearly refutes all science simply by not mentioning science, therefore rendering all religious science arguments false, and also on a scientific level, because they are twisting and turing science....to fit their creation agenda.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

It seems so crazy to have one side of scientists saying, "The fossil record is all but complete," and the other saying, "The fossil record is absolutely impotent."

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."

R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45

"That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

N. Eldredge, and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, 1982, pp. 45-46

Even very astute evolutionists will admit a weak fossil record, while others claim its innerancy. The fundamental evolutionists claim dogma against its attackers, and the attackers claim the same thing back at them. I've read about the horse situation on both sides also:

"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown."

Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."

Niles Eldgridge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988), p. 78 (on the "evolution of the horse" diagrams on public display at the American Museum in NY)

There just seem to be so many diff. opinions from evolutionist to creationist, to Intelligent Design, even from evolutionist to evolutionst. I'm really worried about how empiracally sound all of them are. There just seems to be too much money, dogma, and personal identity at stake among to many of their arguments.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:

every argument you listed does not take into account the fact that life on earth is a few hundred million years old.

the simplest evidence, to me, that evolution took place is in fossil evidence- for example the development of the horse, and of homo sapiens. undeniable, irrefutable rock solid proof.

(The following is not a defense of evidence in question to create an argument or any sort of animosity, but merely to show that the evidence is solid enough for rational discussion.)

The evidence does take the old earth into account. Although Natural Selection is not "random," the mutations are. And since mutations are not beneficial, it is questionable that they would have anything to do with Natural Selection besides the mutants themselves dying off b/c of the negative effects they would have on the species. It is difficult to see life spreading, diversifying, and improving under such negative random mutations.

I've also read compelling rebuttals of the fossil line of human evolution like:

"A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race? The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree? Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered."

Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62.

And the finding of Sahelanthropus tchadensis in Central Africa in 2002 is said to "sink our current ideas about human evolution."
-----John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," , 11 July 2002. http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020708/full/020708-12.html

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated"

John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002

"Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a 'missing link' is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable."

The Guardian, 11 July 2002

Like I said above, there seems to be a general unconcensus among everybody.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

my goedige fok nacker, jy's 'n moeilike een h??
Eye-wink
i liked my horse thingy, so i am gonna do some research to find out wtf is going on, will be back in a few days...

btw nacker, you play the devil's advocate very well... (or is that God's advocate?) hehe

cheers!


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
It seems so crazy to have one side of scientists saying, "The fossil record is all but complete," and the other saying, "The fossil record is absolutely impotent."

Obviously all are entitled to choose to ignore the evidence. Some say the sky is blue and some say there is no sky. Which would you believe? But I think the biology community as a whole is pertty much united. You alwasy have "dissenters" these guys however, work under assumptions and extrapolations. Most have a hidden agenda as well, such as pushing religion.

nacker wrote:

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."

R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991, p. 45

2 things here,

First many discoveries in the fossil record have been made since he wrote this in 1991.

Second, there are many theories that are building on Darwin's theory. Chaos theory being one. Epigenetics being another. That's the beauty of science. But there is absolutely no one...who thinks that Darwin's theory of evolution as a grand scheme concept is wrong. There may be differences in theoris about mechanisms....but this is the very beauty of science... show me peered reviewed papers....I can write a book about the Flying spaghetti monster... and publish it.

nacker wrote:

"That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."

N. Eldredge, and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, Columbia University Press, 1982, pp. 45-46

Again, many discovries have been made....since this was written.
I also find intriguing how anti-evolutionsts will pick little points like...see it's been ONE HUNDRED YEARS!!!!! and NOTHING...which is a false claim to begin with..but get out of the anthropogenic time table here for a sec. It's not like we have "map" or a "book" or a convenient " bible" to tell us where to find the fossils...hell we are very luck to find fossils to begin with... All this is red herring. It also seems to me that these authors don't necessarily have a problem WITH evolution, only the mechanics of it..which is exactly how science works....you build a theory and you test it.
Stephen J. Gould as well as Niles Eldredge use Punctuated Equilibrium to interpret fossil data..however...fossil data is still not fully complete..which is fine, however, neither disputes evolution, and theirs, again, is a theory that will be modified as new species in the fossil record are discovered. To deconstruct their arguments into simplistic anti-darwin evolution is a straw man argument that requires no apologetics. Science works this way... plain and simple.

nacker wrote:

Even very astute evolutionists will admit a weak fossil record, while others claim its innerancy. The fundamental evolutionists claim dogma against its attackers, and the attackers claim the same thing back at them. I've read about the horse situation on both sides also:

"The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown."

Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

This small dog-sized animal is the oldest found horse ancestor that lived about 55 million years ago. It had a primitive short face, with eye sockets in the middle and a short diastema (the space between the front teeth and the cheek teeth). Although it has low-crowned teeth, we see the beginnings of the characteristic horse-like ridges on the molars.

The earliest evidence of this ?little horse? is found in the middle Eocene of Wyoming, about 2 million years after the first appearance of Hyracotherium. The two genera coexisted during the Eocene, although Orohippus fossils are not as numerous or as geographically widespread as those of Hyracotherium. Fossils of Orohippus have been found in Eocene sediments in Wyoming and Oregon, dating from about 52-45 million years ago.

The "middle horse" earned its name. Mesohippus is intermediate between the eohippus-like horses of the Eocene, (which don't look much like our familiar "horse"Eye-wink and more "modern" horses. Fossils of Mesohippus are found at many Oligocene localities in Colorado and the Great Plains of the US (like Nebraska and the Dakotas) and Canada. This genus lived about 37-32 million years ago.

Species of Miohippus gave rise to the first burst of diversity in the horse family. Until Miohippus, there were few side branches, but the descendants of Miohippus were numerous and distinct. During the Miocene, over a dozen genera existed. Fossils of Miohippus are found at many Oligocene localities in the Great Plains, the western US and a few places in Florida. Species in this genus lived from about 32-25 million years ago.

Parahippus appears to be the evolutionary ?link? between the old forest-dwelling horses and the modern plains-dwelling grazers. It has 3 toes, like primitive horses, but the side toes are smaller. They are "horse-faced," or long-headed with the eye socket well back from the middle of the skull. Fossils of Parahippus are found at many early Miocene localities in the Great Plains and Florida. Species in this genus lived from 24-17 million years ago.

Merychippus represents a milestone in the evolution of horses. Though it retained the primitive character of 3 toes, it looked like a modern horse. Merychippus had a long face. Its long legs allowed it to escape from predators and migrate long distances to feed. It had high-crowned cheek teeth, making it the first known grazing horse and the ancestor of all later horse lineages. Fossils of Merychippus are found at many late Miocene localities throughout the United States. Species in this genus lived from 17-11 million years ago.

"Grandfather" to the modern horse, Pliohippus appears to be the source of the latest radiation in the horse family. It is believed to have given rise to Hippidion and Onohippidion, genera that thrived for a time in South American, and to Dinohippus which in turn led to Equus. Fossils of Pliohippus are found at many late Miocene localities in Colorado, the Great Plains of the US (Nebraska and the Dakotas) and Canada. Species in this genus lived from 12-6 million years ago.

Dinohippus is believed to be the closest relative to Equus, the genus that includes the living horses, asses and zebras. Dinohippus fossils are found in the Upper Miocene of North America and date from 13 - 5 million years ago.

Equus is the only surviving genus in the once diverse family of horses. Domesticated about 3,000 years ago, the horse had a profound impact on human history in areas such as migration, farming, warfare, sport, communication, and travel. Species of Equus lived from 5 million years ago until the present. Living species include horses, asses, and zebras. Fossils of Equus are found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica.

nacker wrote:

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."

Niles Eldgridge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland (Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988), p. 78 (on the "evolution of the horse" diagrams on public display at the American Museum in NY)

There just seem to be so many diff. opinions from evolutionist to creationist, to Intelligent Design, even from evolutionist to evolutionst. I'm really worried about how empiracally sound all of them are. There just seems to be too much money, dogma, and personal identity at stake among to many of their arguments.

Question is: are you willing to LOOK at the evidence or ignore the evidence? The evidence is there.. undisputed. If you are color blind; red is still red.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Those are some awesome photos of skeletons from some neat, extinct, semi - horse like species. And I will honor the idea that looking at these differing species the theory that they evolved into eachother is not wholy irrational. But here is me looking at the evidence. I see the seeming impossible idea of random mutations, most of which if not all natural selection would do away with, transforming this small "species of horse," which I've read is nearly identical to a small rabbit-like animal (the hyrax) which still lives in Africa and claimed the closest living relatives of the elephant??? and may not really have anything to do with a horse (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New American Library, New York, 1982, pp. 16-17, 19), and I see solid species not evolving but becoming extinct. Complete species... dying off. Others being found... complete as a species... some living along side eachother but no evolution. Just neat fossils, some of which resemble a horse, some that don't so much. Some closely resemble a rabbit - like animal alive today! I grant that the evolution of the horse is one possible theory... but it has its assumptions and agendas just as much as any other to take a rabbit whos direct descendant may be alive today and drop it in a chart and call it the evolution of the horse.

Rock Hyrax

I've decided to try my best not push an agenda any more. But to be honestly open minded, really listening to all points of view and really trying to be transparent and see my own assumptions, agendas, and dogmas.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
On the Horse and Hyrax

On the Horse and Hyrax.

It is obvious that there are differences from Hyracotherium to the Hyrax, just as there are differences to the horse. Hyracotherium is also said to have been just as good of an ancestor to the Rhinocerose as the Horse, but was placed with the horse b/c of the other species found that could possibly fit in. The charts are obviously prejudice as to depict the small animal in illustrations to be so horse - like. Our interpretation of fossils can be so misleading. At one time we tagged a fossilized fish from the coelacanth family as a transitional form b/c it had a partial lung. That sounded pretty good until we found one alive despite the "fact" it should have been extinct for 70 million years. They didn't have the primitive lung or the large brain that we had theorized. So is the Hyracotherium relative to the hyrax? the rhino? the horse? To take a line of complete fossilized species, whos relation is scientifically questionable and claim them to be the doctrine of the evolution of the horse is not Intelligibly Responsible. To say that it is possible... ok. But to claim it fact and only teach one side of possibilities does not seem scientific. And no... I'm not saying that teaching more than one side includes creationism, or God, or yada yada... just don't teach these hypothesis as fact. Present truth to people... not propaganda.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:
my goedige fok nacker, jy's 'n moeilike een h??
Eye-wink
i liked my horse thingy, so i am gonna do some research to find out wtf is going on, will be back in a few days...

btw nacker, you play the devil's advocate very well... (or is that God's advocate?) hehe

cheers!

Mr. Avenging Bucket sir.. jk

Thanks for taking me seriously and for the honest and rational discussion. But I didn't catch that first part... :shock: I'm kind of rusty on my jibberish. Laughing out loud jk

You are the...

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: On the Horse and Hyrax

nacker wrote:
On the Horse and Hyrax.

It is obvious that there are differences from Hyracotherium to the Hyrax, just as there are differences to the horse. Hyracotherium is also said to have been just as good of an ancestor to the Rhinocerose as the Horse, but was placed with the horse b/c of the other species found that could possibly fit in. The charts are obviously prejudice as to depict the small animal in illustrations to be so horse - like. Our interpretation of fossils can be so misleading. At one time we tagged a fossilized fish from the coelacanth family as a transitional form b/c it had a partial lung. That sounded pretty good until we found one alive despite the "fact" it should have been extinct for 70 million years. They didn't have the primitive lung or the large brain that we had theorized. So is the Hyracotherium relative to the hyrax? the rhino? the horse? To take a line of complete fossilized species, whos relation is scientifically questionable and claim them to be the doctrine of the evolution of the horse is not Intelligibly Responsible. To say that it is possible... ok. But to claim it fact and only teach one side of possibilities does not seem scientific. And no... I'm not saying that teaching more than one side includes creationism, or God, or yada yada... just don't teach these hypothesis as fact. Present truth to people... not propaganda.

first...
I will say this...if you are here for discussion or EVEN debate that's fine. The reason why I was showing animosity towards you was because you were here under false pretences...to push an agenda.... A troll in other words, I've been around a while to know. However, if you put your cards out on the table to begin with (whether you're a creationist, ID, evolutionist whatever)..then we can move forward. But put those cards out on the table, don't come here asking red herring questions and setting up straw man arguments under the guise of "ignorance" or even "friendliness". Since you've mentioned you will put your agenda aside and are willing to discuss...I will take a more friendly tone with you..now...
to my response...
ok, now you're talking a bit more sense. I'll give you that science and scientists do make mistakes. We would not be human if we didn't. But to correct those mistakes science is needed. NOT a fairy tale. Creationsists tend to use mistakes science made to bolster their ideas. I find it kinda funny that they have to do that in order to prove themselves right, becasue essentially they have no proof of their own, so they have to rely solely on the mistakes of scientists...to say " SEE, blah blah blah. It must be god or an intelligent design"

Also, science is biased of course it is..that is why there is a little something called peer review. And believe me there are always competing theories. Most evolutionists' goals in life IS in fact to prove Darwin wrong....not in the sense that evolution is wrong but to find other mechanisms..Chaos theory for example..the complete theory that evolution occurs not because fo genes, but because of other factors...

Example:
"Evolutionary biology rests on the assumption that although events are fundamentally random, some are selected because they are better adapted than others to the surrounding world. This book proposes an alternative view of evolving complexity. Bird argues that randomness means not disorder but infinite order. Complexity arises not from many random events of natural selection (although these are not unimportant) but from the "playing out" of chaotic systems?which are best described mathematically. When we properly understand the complex interplay of chaos and life, Bird contends, we will see that many events that appear random are actually the outcome of order."

Excerpt taken from a review on J. Bird's "Chaos and Life
Complexity and Order in Evolution and Thought" book
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023112/023112662X.HTM

These are arguments from scientists that need to be hypothesized, tested, and withstand time....

Natural Selection has been shown to do that...in the lab, in the field, through the fossil record, in microorganisms, in macroorganisms, on a molecular level..etc...

Testing hypothesis, and theories..is exactly what science is.

I think, much like everthing else from abortion to gay rights, the xtian right takes statistical outliers, and then uses them to say that it's the norm. For example: within the education I've received in Biology, it could not be stressed more that critical thought is the way of biology. When I read scientific journals, I have been trained to look at them critically, to find flaws etc... and to make my own results. What this does is that it allows science to escape the bias. This was TAUGHT to me by the most ardent supporters of evolutionary biologists.. All evolutionary biologists that I have met have been on that page. They teach it that way. To say that science is taught with a bias, may be true in some cases, but the xtian right makes it sound like the norm.

the thing is they do not have ANY evidence themselves, they just try to find the flaws of science, WHICH, scientists find and address themselves..they just don't make a media spectacle of it.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

What is the standard evolutionist rebuttal for this claim? Is this out dated? How so? Please don't yell at me, or put me down, or call me stupid, or ignorant. Just respond rationally and help me learn.

I won't get into a specific pissing match, but this is how I walked away from theism and anything supernatural:

Step 1. Learn the basics of logical arguments. http://homepages.wmich.edu/~malspect/3550W06/brieflogicprimer.htm - this is a very dense version of a basic logic class. purpose - learn the difference between a valid and invalid deductive argument, and a cogent and uncogent inductive argument. This helped me understand what a valid argument is - anything else should be disregarded, or you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Step 2. Learn how science works and how to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. Again, you could take a college course, but here is a good primer - http://isc.astro.cornell.edu/~sloan/personal/science/

Step 3. Using Steps 1 and 2, evaluate Evolution vs. Creationism. I highly recommend watching the webcast of the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Holiday Lecture Series on Evolution - you can get it on DVD for free if you want. It's aimed at a very educated high school audience, who ask some good questions, etc. They go into the history of evolution, some specific examples using fossils and genetic markers, get into predictions and observations, etc. It also talks about what Evolution isn't. Then compare those arguments against articles written by the ICR or Discovery Insititute. Apply Steps 1 and 2 to both sides and decide for yourself.

The conclusions I came to are the following:

1. Evolution has multiple sources of concurring evidence that multiple independent peer reviewed experiments confirm. Conclusions of evolution result in gene therapy, anti-biotics, etc. that are of benefit to society today. Scientists as a whole don't have an agenda, and aren't out to prove a specific idea as right or wrong - they are out to find a truthful, testable, falsifiable explanation for a given phenomena. Science changes as we learn more.

2. Creationism (like people that belive in UFO's, pixies, Robin Hood, etc.) relies on some or all of the following - invalid argument structure (either logical or scientific), non-repeatable experiments, lack of verifications of predictions, lack of predictions, and a general bias in performing their "science". They also use logical fallacies like appeals to authority, name dropping, begging the question, and straw men.

3. If Creationism is true, and all of these supposedly smart people are being fooled by a God that made all this stuff up to make it look like Evolution was true, we're just being toyed around with. Why would I want to worship that God? What kind of a God makes up evidence to fool people, and even goes so far as to make up applications (such as gene therapy) that seem to work, just to further toy with us? That's not any deity I'd want to be with.

4. You can't use science or logic to prove anything supernatural. Belief in anything supernatural is logically fallacious, irrational, and basically deluding yourself.

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

We're getting into topics that I might get yelled at over here. A big reason I'm even on this forum is for personal study and growth through intelligent conversation. I am a theist. But I'm not here to convert or attack. I'm here to learn. Seriously. It'd be awesome to have some civilized discussions on this topic.

The problem with either evolutionists or creationists/ID-ers claiming that logic is obviously completely in their favor, is that logic depends on our premises. Naturalistic Science takes the premise of a materialistic closed system. Those may be some loaded terms so I'll define what I mean: That there is only what is material. Only what is nature. No "supernatural." What you can observe and measure.

The other groups feel that there may be something besides what we usually define as material.

Both of these seem to be just different perspectives. Which ever perspective you begin with is going to filter your logic.

I myself haven't written off the "supernatural."
Who's to say that it isn't "natural" for there to be a god. Maybe this god is just a part of nature... one that is just as much a part of nature as anything else we call "natural." Some theories of evolution that I understand say that the universe began with a big bang. That big bang came from a spinning dot that came from nothing. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound very logical, and it sure doesn't sound "natural." What could be more "un-natural" than nothing... the absolute absense of anything, producing anything... it isn't there to make it. It doesn't exist.

Another theory says that the universe always existed. Continually expanding and contracting. Well, then you have a problem with the concept of infinity. It is irrational to say that the time before this moment is infinite. Infinite has no end... it is infinite. So it is impossible for the time before this moment to be infinite, b/c that infinite time before this moment was just ended by this moment. Hence, time is not infinite. It had to begin. So what began time??? It wasn't nothing. And nothing that we usually claim as "natural" has the power to begin time. So I feel it is logical to say there is a god.

Well then... how did God exist for an infinite amount of time? Who made God? Well, that is exactly the point of God. If He is God, then He exists in His own essence. He is not dependent on time, or creation to exist. He is God. How can He just exist... outside of time and space and matter??? That is a testament to the power that it is to be God. If there is a god, which seems logical according to the absense of the infinity of time, it would only be logical for him to have this type of power. Why is that so "un - natural." It is un - natural because our perspective tells us it must be.

Maybe God wouldn't destroy science but revolutionize it. I know I know.

Again... this is not an evangelical attack or attempt to convert. Just a perspective to discuss. Love me.

Also... a few times I've brought up the idea of random mutations and how they are negative events that would be eliminated by natural selection and not a reasonable foundation for evolution. I'd love a perspective on that. If it has already been given and I missed it... just write it off on my ignorance and please have some patience with me.

Laughing out loud

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

Also... a few times I've brought up the idea of random mutations and how they are negative events that would be eliminated by natural selection and not a reasonable foundation for evolution. I'd love a perspective on that. If it has already been given and I missed it... just write it off on my ignorance and please have some patience with me.

.... It's the environment that really 'decides' weather or not a mutation is 'negative'. Mutations can be either positive or negative (or hell, neutral) with respect to environment. The mutation that is 'positive', that is of benefit with respect to the environment, is the one that help the creature survive better to the point that it can pass on its genetic code to the next generation (who may also get the mutated gene), if the creature has a mutation that hinders it's existence in said environment, then its less likely to survive to the point where it could pass on its genetic information to the next generation, that would be considered a 'negative' mutation, at least for the environment in question.

A random mutation that gives the creature a bight white colour may be a negative mutation in a forest, but say in a snowey area, it would be a positive one.

Sorry, layperson butting in here, please, correct me if I'm wrong, either I've learned something already or I will learn it, win win, I'm also sorry if my example sucked. Smiling

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Left_of, thanks a bunch for saving my horse theory.

Nacker, that jibberish is in fact Afrikaans Smiling where on earth did you get the bucket pic? i thought i was being original? Laughing out loud

anyway:
Horses: (my gross oversimplification)
small horse . . . time passes . . . medium horse . . . time passes . . . beeg horse.
Evolution via natural selection sounds like a plausible explanation (any other explanations?).

the Bible never mentioned or explained any such change in species, because the people who wrote the bible did not even know that the earth was round!!!

-->to Nacker
here's where i'm getting at:
(and this is not an attack on your character, its my observations regarding the way you conduct your investigations)
it would appear that you don't look for the most credible sources, or the most reasonable explanations, but in stead you accept any material which supports your beliefs.

your academic interest in evolution (anti-evolution theory) is not a search for truth and fact but is reactionary, selective, and warped.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

HealingBlight wrote:

.... It's the environment that really 'decides' weather or not a mutation is 'negative'. Mutations can be either positive or negative (or hell, neutral) with respect to environment. Smiling

That sounds very hopeful on the surface, but a lot of it hurts my common sense...

From what I've learned so far there haven't been any positive mutations in regard to any environment. Maybe an extra set of dead wings on fruit flys or legs where antenaes should be. Maybe a two headed turtle that will die in the first winter. Or a cow with an extra leg where it shouldn't be. Basic random mutations of the genetic code that is present. But no mutations beginning new organs or new complex opperations like metamorphosis. I understand we are talking about millions of years here. But all scientific data suggests that mutations are something to be avoided and that the real purpose of natural selection is to preserve a species and protect them from those harmful mutations. I mean, we aren't talking about mutations that just change color or the length or shape of a beak, but creating new organs, new complex organisms or operations. New biological systems, not only in animals but in plants and ecosytems. Niches. The enire ::Ciiiircle of Liiiife:: (sung to the tune of Lion King) The sponge, chlorophyll, metamorphosis, the donkey, human, shark, marine mammals, and even fecies (i.e. the digestive system) evolving from simple amino acids lucky enough to form, find the right order to group, and create life itself. Natural selection is re - created as new enviroments are created by the innumerable positive mutations that some how take hold and convert entire species. That sounds supernatural to me.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

With hindsight it's all too easy for people to comment so ignorantly saying that "life could not have come by chance."

It's reverse probability, that's all.

I recommend you read The Blind Watchmaker, it left none of my questions untouched.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

From what I've learned so far there haven't been any positive mutations in regard to any environment. .

i'm afraid you're learning in the wrong place. You are confining yourself to anti-evolution propaganda.

evolution (evident in fossil records) suggests natural selection took place.
natural selection makes intuitive sense. without it life on earth would not have changed over the last 60 million years and we would not be here.

most of the mutations you speak of were recorded during the last century, right?
100 years.
life on earth: 400 000 000 years.

you claim that mutations are always negative... why would anyone asume that? do the cells know what is a positive or negative developement?
i do not need to have absolute certainty about the mechanism of evolution to believe that it took place (high probability due to overwhelming evidence).
Newton formulated his universal gravity laws without knowing anything about the mechanism which causes matter to be atracted to matter.

now consider how many animals have lived and died over 400000000 years.
for an animal corpse to become a fossil in stead of simply decomposing requires special conditions. therefore, the fossil evidence we have only gives us a glimpse of what happened- BUT STILL - the few pieces of the puzzle that we have shows us a picture of evolution.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
I mean, we aren't talking about mutations that just change color or the length or shape of a beak, but creating new organs, new complex organisms or operations. New biological systems, not only in animals but in plants and ecosytems. Niches. The enire ::Ciiiircle of Liiiife:: (sung to the tune of Lion King) The sponge, chlorophyll, metamorphosis, the donkey, human, shark, marine mammals, and even fecies (i.e. the digestive system) evolving from simple amino acids lucky enough to form, find the right order to group, and create life itself. Natural selection is re - created as new enviroments are created by the innumerable positive mutations that some how take hold and convert entire species. That sounds supernatural to me.

it is by far the most plausible explanation, and it is the only explanation that fits the evidence.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

Like I said above, there seems to be a general unconcensus among everybody.

No, the scientific community (people with high IQs) generally agree on issues such as evolution and natural selection.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Avenging bucket...

Yes the bucket was original. I spent all of like 2 minutes of my life designing that for you. It would make a great icon.

I study what I can find. I've been taught a lot about the truth of evolution, so yes right now my interest is in getting the other side of what I was taught in high school and college. But I do bounce around and here arguments from each side. And that is also why I am here... to bounce ideas off of you to better understand both arguments and where everyone is coming from.

So yes the majority of my major study is in my interest right now... "anit-evolution," but I am cross referencing, and that is why I am here getting all of your ideas as well.

There may be a slight possibility that not everyone here has researched the other side of their beliefs completely and objectively.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

The high IQ thing was pretty prejudiced and biggoted. There are a lot of highly educated and intelligent people interpretting what you call highly recorded evidence for evolution as evidence for creation, design, etc. And their explanations include scientific experiments and observations. I think it is possible that you are doing the very thing you are accusing me of... writing off any belief that doesn't coencide with your own?????

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

my apologies...

i will try to restrain myself in the future. :oops:

ps: i am an-ex christian. when i was 17 i asked myself 'What if God does not exist?'


StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

That sounds very hopeful on the surface, but a lot of it hurts my common sense...

That statement is a logical fallacy. Whether or not it hurts your common sense has nothing to do with the truth-value of said statement.

If you are truly seeking knowledge, you have to use non-fallacious reasoning.

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

StopEvangelists wrote:

If you are truly seeking knowledge, you have to use non-fallacious reasoning.

Agreed.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:
:

ps: i am an-ex christian. when i was 17 i asked myself 'What if God does not exist?'

I've asked that question myself... many times. Some times to despair. That's a pretty freakin' big what if. That's when I came to the conclusion that I listed earlier. I refuse to sacrifice my reason to believe that the Big Bang came from nothing. And it is irrational for time before this moment to be infinite. If God is going to be God then it is only logical for him to be above time. Existing in his own essence. Answering to no created thing. So, to me, it seems rational to believe that God is real, above time, and know-able (I beleive He best fits the evidence that we are here on this forum right now whether by some sort of evolution or special creation) --- I'm still studying to find out what I believe about how he did it guided evolution, special creation, 6 day creation with young earth and flood etc. or what. I know why I still cling to Christianity, and it doesn't have much to do with a weak - minded, unstudied dogma. Truth is all we have, and it is all I will seek. Live truth or live a lie right???

I really appreciate this forum b/c it has challenged me to dig deeper into what I believe and what Truth may be. Deeper into science, deeper into the Bible, and deeper into my personal faith to see if it is something that I could walk away from some day. So thanks for the discussion, and the guidance. Fo' rizzle!!

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
I refuse to sacrifice my reason to believe that the Big Bang came from nothing. And it is irrational for time before this moment to be infinite. If God is going to be God then it is only logical for him to be above time. Existing in his own essence. Answering to no created thing. So, to me, it seems rational to believe that God is real, above time, and know-able (I beleive He best fits the evidence that we are here on this forum right now whether by some sort of evolution or special creation) --- I'm still studying to find out what I believe about how he did it guided evolution, special creation, 6 day creation with young earth and flood etc. or what. I know why I still cling to Christianity, and it doesn't have much to do with a weak - minded, unstudied dogma. Truth is all we have, and it is all I will seek. Live truth or live a lie right???

There are thousands of unanswered questions, and scientists learn more, discover more, every day. Old theories are replaced by new theories, and the picture of our past and present universe changes constantly, but this picture is converging... 500 years ago people still believed that the earth was flat. these days in stead of changing our knowledge new discoveries usually add to our knowledge.

Ask yourself this: if you had never heard anything of christianity, would there be anything, anything, around you to suggest that a supernatural being was behind your existence? the answer is a simple NO. Because if there were any evidence to suggest a god, there would have been a scientific theory concerning his existence.

People's belief in god can be atributed to certain factors:
1) Everybody else believes. Peer pressure leads to smoking and theism. 500 years ago everyone thought the earth was flat, and now, everyone knows the earth is round.
2) The bible- which contains nothing to suggest that it was dictated by 'God', but contains lots of things that indicate that it was the creative product of men of the time. For example, several passages state that the earth is flat. Also, the bible that i can find today is a collage of what was actually written. How much was changed and omitted?
3) 'I exist. The explanations that science offers are improbable. I believe that God must have created me.' -- !!! i'm sorry? come again? Are you serious? I would rather accept that i don't know everything, than explain everything with an improbable god.

Tell me Nacker, why do you believe?


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

we are deviating from the subject under discussion, so i posted my last reply as a new thread in 'atheist vs theist'.


HealingBlight
HealingBlight's picture
Posts: 256
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
HealingBlight wrote:

.... It's the environment that really 'decides' weather or not a mutation is 'negative'. Mutations can be either positive or negative (or hell, neutral) with respect to environment. Smiling

That sounds very hopeful on the surface, but a lot of it hurts my common sense...

From what I've learned so far there haven't been any positive mutations in regard to any environment. Maybe an extra set of dead wings on fruit flys or legs where antenaes should be. Maybe a two headed turtle that will die in the first winter. Or a cow with an extra leg where it shouldn't be. Basic random mutations of the genetic code that is present. But no mutations beginning new organs or new complex opperations like metamorphosis. I understand we are talking about millions of years here. But all scientific data suggests that mutations are something to be avoided and that the real purpose of natural selection is to preserve a species and protect them from those harmful mutations. I mean, we aren't talking about mutations that just change color or the length or shape of a beak, but creating new organs, new complex organisms or operations. New biological systems, not only in animals but in plants and ecosytems. Niches. The enire ::Ciiiircle of Liiiife:: (sung to the tune of Lion King) The sponge, chlorophyll, metamorphosis, the donkey, human, shark, marine mammals, and even fecies (i.e. the digestive system) evolving from simple amino acids lucky enough to form, find the right order to group, and create life itself. Natural selection is re - created as new enviroments are created by the innumerable positive mutations that some how take hold and convert entire species. That sounds supernatural to me.

Allright, with respect to the development of more complex organs, that I would have to pass onto an actual biologist to explain, but I'm guessing if the scientific community couldn?t even begin to show how such things develop with respect to , I seriously doubt that there would be such universal support behind evolution, and just because science doesn?t have the full answer.
As always, just because science doesn?t have all the answers at the moment(and probably wont unless there is a freak discovery that explains it all, scientifically that is), doesn?t mean that it's a)Wrong or b)Never going to find them, but to my understanding, the amount of work, research, confirmation and re-confirmation involved in the modern scientific world for something like evolution or gravity to be so widely accepted could be so much, that when looking back at it, you would of had to think that a creator did it. ^_^ (Sorry, that was just a joke Sticking out tongue)

May I ask in return: how does a creator create all life? I mean the 'because life is too complex for me to start to fathom, I think a creator must of -had- to of created it' idea does not try to explain a single part of the process involved, if we had an artificial structure that man created, we would either already know how it was made from getting the raw materials to the finished product, or we would be able to reverse-engineer it to some degree. I understand that you are here as someone who wishes to learn about evolution, but out of curiosity, could you explain the mechanisms and processes behind creationism? Do you wish to make a topic on that? I mean, you may not get onboard with evolution, but you may end up seeing creationism as the fraud it is once the science guys shred up any pro-creation idea you post. I personaly will be looking forward to the explination of how a creator creates all life. (I see that alot of your post is questioning evo)

-----------------------
I'll get back to you when I think of something worthwhile to say.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

[quote="HealingBlight
Allright, with respect to the development of more complex organs, that I would have to pass onto an actual biologist to explain, but I'm guessing if the scientific community couldn?t even begin to show how such things develop with respect to , I seriously doubt that there would be such universal support behind evolution, and just because science doesn?t have the full answer.
As always, just because science doesn?t have all the answers at the moment(and probably wont unless there is a freak discovery that explains it all, scientifically that is), doesn?t mean that it's a)Wrong or b)Never going to find them, but to my understanding, the amount of work, research, confirmation and re-confirmation involved in the modern scientific world for something like evolution or gravity to be so widely accepted could be so much, that when looking back at it, you would of had to think that a creator did it. ^_^ (Sorry, that was just a joke Sticking out tongue)

May I ask in return: how does a creator create all life? I mean the 'because life is too complex for me to start to fathom, I think a creator must of -had- to of created it' idea does not try to explain a single part of the process involved, if we had an artificial structure that man created, we would either already know how it was made from getting the raw materials to the finished product, or we would be able to reverse-engineer it to some degree. I understand that you are here as someone who wishes to learn about evolution, but out of curiosity, could you explain the mechanisms and processes behind creationism? Do you wish to make a topic on that? I mean, you may not get onboard with evolution, but you may end up seeing creationism as the fraud it is once the science guys shred up any pro-creation idea you post. I personaly will be looking forward to the explination of how a creator creates all life. (I see that alot of your post is questioning evo)

Try using your same logic, we don't have all the evidence to empiracally prove evolution, but we'll find it in time... just b/c we don't know everything or how everything works is no reason to write off science... to God. We don't know everything about Him or how He created everything...(besides... if God does exist, shouldn't there be some things we won't understand about Him... He is God not us. If we could fully fathom Him then we might as well be god. If God is God then it is logical for us not to understand everything about Him.)
Just b/c we can't figure it all out in a moment is no reason to write Him off as fallacy. Heck, if every scientist did that about stuff we didn't understand about science we'd never get anywhere... right. Maybe we should persue truth in every area... Apply our dogmatic logic paradigms to more than just what propagates our own personal identity supporting worldviews.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

the_avenging_bucket wrote:

Ask yourself this: if you had never heard anything of christianity, would there be anything, anything, around you to suggest that a supernatural being was behind your existence? the answer is a simple NO. Because if there were any evidence to suggest a god, there would have been a scientific theory concerning his existence.

People's belief in god can be atributed to certain factors:
1) Everybody else believes. Peer pressure leads to smoking and theism. 500 years ago everyone thought the earth was flat, and now, everyone knows the earth is round.
2) The bible- which contains nothing to suggest that it was dictated by 'God', but contains lots of things that indicate that it was the creative product of men of the time. For example, several passages state that the earth is flat. Also, the bible that i can find today is a collage of what was actually written. How much was changed and omitted?
3) 'I exist. The explanations that science offers are improbable. I believe that God must have created me.' -- !!! i'm sorry? come again? Are you serious? I would rather accept that i don't know everything, than explain everything with an improbable god.

Tell me Nacker, why do you believe?

This discussion is still dealing with evolution and science (the philosophy and theoretical parts of it) so I posted here.

Answer to initial question... Yes. As already described in my other posts. There will not be any scientific explanation of how a big bang came from nothing. Hope some one try someday and have a huge grant to study everything about "nothing" and how it works. The infinite past has been proved non-infinite by this moment. So it began. It didn't come from nowhere. What is big enough to have the power to exist in its own essence... outside of time and space and what we call material. Sounds like a god. So... I call Him God.
Besides... your hypothetical question... "if there wasn't christianity around.' is a question outside the realms of reality and has no place in the discussion of reality. Christianity is here. Persisiting throughout centuries in light of persecution, ridicule, and Mr. Darwin. Why?

Now to your numbered questions.
1.) I grew my own brain a long time ago. Don't stereotype and judge my beliefs as irrelevant, un thought out dogma. I've struggled, sweat, wept, and studied to understand what I believe about reality... and it was worth it. Besides... peer pressure also keeps people from murdering, raping, and taking advantage of humanity. Let's not generalize and write off peer pressure as a horrible thing even if it was the reason for my present belief.

2.) The Bible is unique in works of antiquity. Over sixty books written by over forty authors over a period of 2000 years. The Old Test. canon was in pretty solid formation by the time of Jesus, and the New Test. was mostly in place by general consensus by the early church before the councels made their decisions. These books tell a solid story of God revealing Himself to man as a loving God. Do I know everything about the Bible??? No. But I study. Like a scientist not ready to leave a theory just b/c things are a little hard right now. You think the Bible is out dated b/c of the problems people tell you it has. Well, people say that the theory of evolution is out dated. Just think, years ago we thought the world was flat... now we think evolution created everything (using your arguments on purpose.)
The Bible, at least the New testament, is the best kept ancient document in all of history with thousands and thousands of copies dating within a few decades of original copies. Through cross referencing these unparallelled multitude of copies some people claim the new test. is 99.5 percent accurate, with no doctrines in danger or dispute b/c of differences. The runner up is Homer's Illiad with around 600 copies... the earliest 300 years from the date of the original. That's the best the rest of history has to offer. What a coincidence that the Bible holds the record.
Who knows what Plato and Aristotle really said. Who knows what Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny really wrote. Why is the best documentation reserved for this Jesus Christ who we want to crucify again over historical grounds???? Get over it. There is a reason His biographies are the best kept history in antiquity. Through archaelogic study of the book of Acts, Luke has been called the most accurate historian of all time by a leading expert (remind me and I'll get a name for you so you know I'm not making it up.)

3.) You misread my theories. I don't supplant God b/c I don't believe in science. B/c their creation accounts don't make me happy. I truly believe an all powerful God is the only logical explanation for existence. Not just the best fit. I said best fit earlier to identify with the scientific methods you were describing. The only reason some of us won't admit the logic of God is b/c we have written off the supernatural. We are following Madonna in her "material girl" ways. Laughing out loud I've experienced, seen, and heard first hand many supernatural events. Observable if not totally measurable events. Almost scientific yes - no?

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

Another theory says that the universe always existed. Continually expanding and contracting. Well, then you have a problem with the concept of infinity. It is irrational to say that the time before this moment is infinite. Infinite has no end... it is infinite. So it is impossible for the time before this moment to be infinite, b/c that infinite time before this moment was just ended by this moment. Hence, time is not infinite. It had to begin. So what began time??? It wasn't nothing. And nothing that we usually claim as "natural" has the power to begin time. So I feel it is logical to say there is a god.

And what if humans were not here to raise such questions? Would that change the course of the universe? How can you even declare the meaning of infinite when it is impossible for you to mentally conceive such an idea? If science has taught us anything, anything at all ? it?s that this universe we observe isn?t the whole deal and that no matter what we will reach a barrier held by technology or cultural ignorance. The idea of nothingness you speak of is a perspective of nothingness from what we observe now. That at one point there is the beginning and before that is unreachable by our eyes of observation. These physical dimensions we experience did not always exist, this planet didn?t always exist, and a human mind didn?t always exist to know the hitherto developments of our universe, but that in no way proves that nothing before this moment ever existed. The idea of bringing up god as a write off for all unanswered questions is far from logical. That is mysticism and a see/hear/say no evil ipso facto declaration that in no way enlightens the topics at hand. You want to know the truth? Find it. Don?t hand it over to the charge of some imaginary thought in your head that is called ?god?.

About random mutations: they aren?t all negative events; the majority of them are but not all of them like you enjoy declaring. Found in these seemingly ?lucky? occurrences of mutation that better the phenotype so that it is open for selection over other forms are the directions to the roads of evolution on all scales. Just as the genetic changes of domesticated dogs through breading leads to accepted breeds through their effect on the phenotype of the animal itself depending on the tastes of human beings. The random mutations that get to the stage of selection are chosen depending on the tastes of something called ?survival?.

I'm still astounded by the simple fact that you can put blind acceptance of an unknown, unexplainable, and improvable god above evidence found in science. Especially considering that natural selection has been proven to the point that it is on the same ground as gravity itself.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

I'm still astounded by the simple fact that you can put blind acceptance of an unknown, unexplainable, and improvable theory above evidence found in science. Especially considering that natural selection has been proven to the point that it is on the same ground as gravity itself. And natural selection has been shown to preserve species... not transform them into new ones.

The very scientific fact that the universe (time, space, consciousness, matter, and the very concept of argument) is finite... i.e. had a beginning, begs the question of its existence. If the physical realm... the natural realm was not here to bring it into being, what does that leave??? Something other than natural... above natural... SUPERnatural. The imaginary friend that you call a "god" appears to me the scientific explanation of a reality that extends beyond the "science" that we worship. Try your logic on your science. If there was a time beyond all that your naturalistic science studies, then your science is not the ultimate reality... but maybe it points to the ultimate reality. Like singularity points and cries for a creator. You cannot explain with science, what precedes the existence of the science you are using as an explanation.

Your argument argues for God.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Give me examples of positive mutations. And more importantly... positive mutations carried on by the species.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
Give me examples of positive mutations. And more importantly... positive mutations carried on by the species.

Are you shitting me? You're unaware of antiobiotic resistant bacteria? You're unaware of pesticide resitant insectrs? You're unaware of the growing lactose tolerance in humans?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:

The very scientific fact that the universe (time, space, consciousness, matter, and the very concept of argument) is finite... i.e. had a beginning, begs the question of its existence.

Which shows how little you know about cosmology and science in general. The most lucid theory going right now is Hawking's and Hartel's "no boundary" proposal.

Creation ex nihlo is a classic failure of human perception.

No painting comes to exist without a painter, no building is built without an architect, etc. Seems logical enough, but do these people create from literally nothing or is it more accurate to say they assemble existing materials? For no painter starts with nothing - they start with blank canvass and paint. No builder starts with nothing, they start with brick, mortar and blueprints. Something never comes from literally nothing.

Looking at things from the perspective of a First Cause argument, which theists are quite fond of, for something to exercise influence on the universe this causal agent must have already existed. Something nonexistent can't serve as a causal agent; thus causality must assume existence. Theists arguing for a creation of the universe ex nihlo, however have their logic backward - that existence assumes causation.

What the atheist can offer is a scientific explanation that meshes with conventional logic.

If we take matter-energy to be eternal, uncaused - as our best science seems to suggest (see the first law again), then existence is simply axiomatic. The universe just is, and the Big Bang becomes more or less a transitional event. The universe as we know it began with the Big Bang, but the matter-energy was always there, it must have been - to say otherwise turns all of physics as we understand it on its head.

We know that matter-energy is conserved - always, in every instance we have ever observed or theorized about. It is but a simple and very reasonable extrapolation to then say that matter-energy has always been, and it is empirically evident. There is no need to postulate a creator or a creation ex nihlo.

Not only does science point to existence being axiomatic, but simple logic does as well, because ?nothing? is an incoherent concept. ?Nothing? is not lack, not empty, not the void, not darkness, not the absence of anything, because the absence of anything would still be something. So again, the concept of creation from literally nothing makes no sense, because ?nothing? quite literally cannot exist.

In the end, the theist is reduced to demanding to know why there is something rather than nothing ? but this too begs the question, because it presumes that nothing or non-existence ought to be the natural state of things. This is like presuming the sky is supposed to be green and then citing the fact that it is blue as evidence for a Creator.

A scientist does not ask "why is there something rather than nothing", but rather "why SHOULDN'T there be something rather than nothing". There isn't anything about the universe that suggests it shouldn't be here and be exactly as we observe it be.

All of that aside, current quantum theories may in fact have room for our universe coming from what would be perceptually (not literally) nothing. Such theories included the universe arising from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that propagated itself, proposed by Ed Tyron in the early 1970s and a variation upon this proposed by Alex Vilenkin in the 80s that was dubbed quantum tunneling.

The most lucid theory going at the moment was proposed by Stephen Hawking and James Hartle, and is often dubbed the ?no boundary proposal?. Their view provides a description of the universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it ? pretty much what I?ve laid out above. For Hawking, this description is timeless, for as one looks at earlier and earlier times, they find that the universe is not eternal, but has no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of Planck time (10-43 seconds), our classical understanding of space-time is reduced to quantum soup. In Hawking's exact words:

?The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.? - A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.

Quote:
Something other than natural... above natural... SUPERnatural.

IOW, wholly incoherent and untestable.

Quote:
The imaginary friend that you call a "god" appears to me the scientific explanation of a reality that extends beyond the "science" that we worship.

The day "god did it" becomes a scientific explaination, I'll eat your hat.

Quote:
Try your logic on your science. If there was a time beyond all that your naturalistic science studies, then your science is not the ultimate reality... but maybe it points to the ultimate reality. Like singularity points and cries for a creator. You cannot explain with science, what precedes the existence of the science you are using as an explanation.

Your argument argues for God.

No, your excuse and explaination is an argument from ignorance. It explains nothing, it is not logical, it is not scientific.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Hawkings model avoids singularity by using imaginary numbers (the square root of negative one), but let's forget about that for now. If a graph is formed of the "normal... big bang" model (equation) it looks like a cone. The point representing the beginning or singularity, and then expansion. Hawkings model (equation) would look like a badmitton birdie. Rounded where the singularity would be. But Hawkings makes a philisophical error... in his model seen by the illustration, is still finite in its past. I t still has a beginning in the sense that something has a finite past duration. For any finite interval of time you pick, there are only a finite number of equal intervals prior to that time. It has a beginning.

All of that is neat mathematical speculation by shifting numbers to get the result you want (i.e. substituting imaginary numbers) If you convert these IMAGINARY number then you retain a singularity. A beginning which requires a beginner.

Hawking admits this and says that his model wasn't supposed to represent reality b/c he has no idea what reality is.

Stephen W. Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996).

And your logic is self defeating b/c not only is nothing an idea that doesn't exist in reality but so is the infinite. If the universe "always was" then you are dependent on the infinite which may be the polar opposite of nothing but is equal in its irrational behavior.

I have an infinite amount of marbles.
I give you all of them.

Infinity - infinity = 0

I have an infinite amount of marbles.
I give you all the odd. We both have an infinity of marbles.

Infinity - infinity = infinity

I have an infinite amount of marbles.
I give you all of them beginning with the 11th marble. You have an infinite amount of marbles... I have ten.

Infinity - Infinity = 10

Plus... there is the impossibility of traversing the infinite. No matter how close to infinity you get... you still have to add just one more.

If the amount of events before this one were infinite, then we would never reach this moment (we would always have to add just one more) the fact that you are reading this post either demonstrates that you have just traversed the infinite (impossible) or that existant time is not infinite and either comes from nothing or something big enough to exist on its own.

Infinity is just as irrational as nothing. So, without god you have to claim it all came from nothing or infinity, both being equally irrational and existant as only an idea or a concept.

I say, "God," which logically stems from the irrational concept of the two ideas in our present discussion. The thing that exists outside of time and space in its own existence is necesarrily God and necissarily existence b/c of the irrationality of nothing and infinity.

You say, "only the physical," which stems from either nothing or infinity b/c there is nothing above the natural, so you are left with an irrational faith and reality.

Is your belief in evolution necessitated by your irrational belief in the physical?

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" Dawkins

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
Hawkings model avoids singularity by using imaginary numbers (the square root of negative one), but let's forget about that for now. If a graph is formed of the "normal... big bang" model (equation) it looks like a cone. The point representing the beginning or singularity, and then expansion. Hawkings model (equation) would look like a badmitton birdie. Rounded where the singularity would be. But Hawkings makes a philisophical error... in his model seen by the illustration, is still finite in its past. I t still has a beginning in the sense that something has a finite past duration. For any finite interval of time you pick, there are only a finite number of equal intervals prior to that time. It has a beginning.

Wrong, at least in the way Hawking and Hartel put it, also completely wrong in the sense of the first law of thermodynamics and the conservation of mass energy. Did you even read my post?

Quote:
All of that is neat mathematical speculation by shifting numbers to get the result you want (i.e. substituting imaginary numbers) If you convert these IMAGINARY number then you retain a singularity. A beginning which requires a beginner.

Hawking admits this and says that his model wasn't supposed to represent reality b/c he has no idea what reality is.

Stephen W. Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996).

And your logic is self defeating b/c not only is nothing an idea that doesn't exist in reality but so is the infinite. If the universe "always was" then you are dependent on the infinite which may be the polar opposite of nothing but is equal in its irrational behavior.

I have an infinite amount of marbles.
I give you all of them.

Infinity - infinity = 0

I have an infinite amount of marbles.
I give you all the odd. We both have an infinity of marbles.

Infinity - infinity = infinity

I have an infinite amount of marbles.
I give you all of them beginning with the 11th marble. You have an infinite amount of marbles... I have ten.

Irrelevent. Hawkings and NO cosmologist contends that the universe was created from literally nothing. Something NEVER comes from nothing.

(BTW, before you go quote mining, note the words LITERALLY NOTHING - as in creation ex nihlo)

Quote:
Plus... there is the impossibility of traversing the infinite. No matter how close to infinity you get... you still have to add just one more.

Impossible, except when it comes to God, you mean, right?

When you can explain to me, scientifically speaking, how something can come from nothing, let us all know.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
Give me examples of positive mutations. And more importantly... positive mutations carried on by the species.

Our thumbs. Varying muscle structures found in different cultures. Becoming bipedal and what it meant for our physical nature. Language. Our advanced vocal tracts. Culture itself. Our brains and in effect what is 'human consciousness'. Vision. Our lungs.

The fact that technology (once discovered) has always progressed is simple proof that intelligence is selected for. Otherwise we would have no progress at all.

You need to come up with a better answer than 'that's proof of god'. Especially when it?s proof of natural selection. There is no 'design' beyond human design. The statement of a 'god' or a 'higher' being is nothing more than a mental assumption created by your consciousness and an idea, an old idea formed when people used it to survive. A parasitic idea that roots itself into a mind in the most hypocritical way: that salvation is found in the blind ignorance of truth. Such disposition is no longer needed and hasn?t been for quite some time? otherwise we wouldn?t live in a country where words like these won?t end with my head on a stake.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

I never said something comes from nothing or infinite b/c both are irrational. That's what you say.

We either came from nothing... we are infinite... or came from something big enough to start it all. Two of the three are irrational.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
I never said something comes from nothing or infinite b/c both are irrational. That's what you say.

We either came from nothing... we are infinite... or came from something big enough to start it all. Two of the three are irrational.

It's irrational to believe we came from something 'big enough to start it all'. Where did this 'something' come from then? Why is this 'something big' so inefficient in its design plan that out of the billions and trillions of stars, only a handful form into it's 'planned design'? Alluding to some higher power just makes me wonder what kind of lazy, sloppy, ass backwards 'higher' being we are dealing with... and where exactly this fool came from.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

OpiateCopulation wrote:
nacker wrote:
Give me examples of positive mutations. And more importantly... positive mutations carried on by the species.

Our thumbs. Varying muscle structures found in different cultures. Becoming bipedal and what it meant for our physical nature. Language. Our advanced vocal tracts. Culture itself. Our brains and in effect what is 'human consciousness'. Vision. Our lungs.

The fact that technology (once discovered) has always progressed is simple proof that intelligence is selected for. Otherwise we would have no progress at all.

You need to come up with a better answer than 'that's proof of god'. Especially when it?s proof of natural selection. There is no 'design' beyond human design. The statement of a 'god' or a 'higher' being is nothing more than a mental assumption created by your consciousness and an idea, an old idea formed when people used it to survive. A parasitic idea that roots itself into a mind in the most hypocritical way: that salvation is found in the blind ignorance of truth. Such disposition is no longer needed and hasn?t been for quite some time? otherwise we wouldn?t live in a country where words like these won?t end with my head on a stake.

Presuppositions.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

OpiateCopulation wrote:
nacker wrote:
I never said something comes from nothing or infinite b/c both are irrational. That's what you say.

We either came from nothing... we are infinite... or came from something big enough to start it all. Two of the three are irrational.

It's irrational to believe we came from something 'big enough to start it all'. Where did this 'something' come from then? Why is this 'something big' so inefficient in its design plan that out of the billions and trillions of stars, only a handful form into it's 'planned design'? Alluding to some higher power just makes me wonder what kind of lazy, sloppy, ass backwards 'higher' being we are dealing with... and where exactly this fool came from.

Atheists always come back with the "Who made God?" Or as you put it... "Where did this 'something' come from then?" Can't you see that the question you ask makes the point. This "something" not necessitating creation is by defintion God. That's why He is God. It is easy for you to hold on to a shakey theory like evolution b/c you hope the information later will help support it. But looking at the irrational belief that something can come from nothing, and the irrational belief that time can be infinite... why can't you accept the logical, rational explanation that our existant situation leaves room at the origins only for a God.

Maybe what you see as inefficient is the defintion of efficiency... to be able to create all of these billions and trillions of stars and have only the incredible needs for life met exactly where He wanted it. Right in a great positioning to be able to study the universe. So we can see his power. Learn of his attributes.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Wrong, at least in the way Hawking and Hartel put it, also completely wrong in the sense of the first law of thermodynamics and the conservation of mass energy. Did you even read my post?

Quote:

Hawking admits this and says that his model wasn't supposed to represent reality b/c he has no idea what reality is.

Stephen W. Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996).

And your logic is self defeating b/c not only is nothing an idea that doesn't exist in reality but so is the infinite. If the universe "always was" then you are dependent on the infinite which may be the polar opposite of nothing but is equal in its irrational behavior.

.

Irrelevent. Hawkings and NO cosmologist contends that the universe was created from literally nothing. Something NEVER comes from nothing.

(BTW, before you go quote mining, note the words LITERALLY NOTHING - as in creation ex nihlo)

Quote:
Plus... there is the impossibility of traversing the infinite. No matter how close to infinity you get... you still have to add just one more.

Impossible, except when it comes to God, you mean, right?

When you can explain to me, scientifically speaking, how something can come from nothing, let us all know.

Did you even read my post??? I was not, did not, never will, claim that anything came from nothing. What I did do, is paint a picture for you that the infinite is as irrational as nothing. To claim everything came from nothing is infantile. To claim that everything is infinite is at least as bad. Re-read my post to find out why.

And it is... actually... very relevant that Hawkings claims of his own model that it was not to represent reality b/c he has no idea what reality is. It is EXTREMELY RELEVANT that his own model expresses singularity (a beginning) when you do away with his imaginary numbers. Because... without something big enough to exist in its own essence... not coming or becoming from anything... then all known and accepted models of origin claim that something came from nothing which is an idea we both protest.
And the infinite of origin is just as irrational. Your materialist philosophy has abandoned you in the face of simple logic.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
OpiateCopulation wrote:
nacker wrote:
I never said something comes from nothing or infinite b/c both are irrational. That's what you say.

We either came from nothing... we are infinite... or came from something big enough to start it all. Two of the three are irrational.

It's irrational to believe we came from something 'big enough to start it all'. Where did this 'something' come from then? Why is this 'something big' so inefficient in its design plan that out of the billions and trillions of stars, only a handful form into it's 'planned design'? Alluding to some higher power just makes me wonder what kind of lazy, sloppy, ass backwards 'higher' being we are dealing with... and where exactly this fool came from.

Atheists always come back with the "Who made God?" Or as you put it... "Where did this 'something' come from then?" Can't you see that the question you ask makes the point. This "something" not necessitating creation is by defintion God. That's why He is God. It is easy for you to hold on to a shakey theory like evolution b/c you hope the information later will help support it. But looking at the irrational belief that something can come from nothing, and the irrational belief that time can be infinite... why can't you accept the logical, rational explanation that our existant situation leaves room at the origins only for a God.

Maybe what you see as inefficient is the defintion of efficiency... to be able to create all of these billions and trillions of stars and have only the incredible needs for life met exactly where He wanted it. Right in a great positioning to be able to study the universe. So we can see his power. Learn of his attributes.

You're delusional. Evolution is a shakey theory? Explain, with actual evidence a theory that stands in its place.

nacker wrote:

Did you even read my post???

Have you even read any of ours?

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

There is plenty of information on why evolution is shaky. Go to darwinismrefuted.com.

But that is not the main emphasis of the above posts.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.


OpiateCopulation
OpiateCopulation's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

nacker wrote:
There is plenty of information on why evolution is shaky. Go to darwinismrefuted.com.

But that is not the main emphasis of the above posts.

It's funny... that website uses crude and ass backwards logic on topics of evolution that have been corrected and fixed by scientific procedure in the recent years (what Darwin proclaimed is not what evolution is today, what Darwin did was spark a flame and from that point on the fire was out of his hands). You see the scientific method allows people to accept failures in theory. Why? Because theories are made to be broken and not only broken but fixed and broke again ad infinitum. So, you refute evolution with no claim that hasn't already been addressed by the scientific community, as if a theory is written in stone. You are wrong and until you can provide a rational, scientifically backed explanation in the place of evolution you should stop wasting your time.

Until then have fun in your blind world because it seems as though you're hopeless. Your creed is dying... for the simple reason that it has no relevance or use anymore. I hope any children you have grow out of your lies, for their own sake (and my children's sake) and their children's and their's... and so on. Just thinking about a bright future.

'We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.' - Richard Dawkins
MySpace


nacker
Posts: 117
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Something I found on creationscience.com

I love the irrefutable religion you have skillfully crafted and masked as scientific theorizing. These theories are made to be broken and rebuilt. That way, we can't really question the theory as a whole, but only little parts of it that we can resupport with more speculatory theories. I hope one day, you will grow out of your hypocricy and any children you have will as well. For their sakes. And the sake of my children. etc etc.
Just thinking about a rational future.

Call it God. Or come up with another theory extrapolating the logical defintions of nothing and the infinite.