i'm NOT christian... and proud of it!!!

[GTAVercetti 0]

Ahhh....discovery.org.


Making us dumber....one small, NON-EVOLUTIONARY step at a time.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SpeedRacer 1]

the problem with creationists is that they seem to have absolutely NO curiousity as to what physical mechanisms took place in the process of creation. And they stigmatize anyone who tries to explore them as being atheistic.

If evolution doesn't explain the development & diversification of species, then tell me what physical mechanisms took place instead?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[GTAVercetti 0]

duh.

It just was made that way. Jeez man, don't you know ANYTHING?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[JackC 0]

Quote

What I seem to find is that there are a lot of fossils with some similar features being placed in a timeline even though the key element proving they are transitional is missing. That key piece is just assumed to make it fit the puzzle. Also, if dating shows that it is older or younger than previously thought, or if it can't be very accurate and the margin of error is huge, it is just put wherever it best fits.

Do you apply similar skepticism to the Bible? If not why not? If you do and are prepared to believe the Bible but not evolution, what makes the Bible more believable to you than peer-reviewed self-correcting scientific evidence?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Ahhh....discovery.org.


Making us dumber....one small, NON-EVOLUTIONARY step at a time.

Right. They're all just a bunch of idiots.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Do you apply similar skepticism to the Bible? If not why not? If you do and are prepared to believe the Bible but not evolution, what makes the Bible more believable to you than peer-reviewed self-correcting scientific evidence?

Literary textual criticism, historical verifiability, hermeneutics, etc. is different from proving anything scientifically. Do I hold the Bible to the same standard of proof as other similar literary works? Yes. Also, the peer-reviewed self-correcting scientific evidence you mentioned has not even come close to proving morphology through natural selection.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Ahhh....discovery.org.


Making us dumber....one small, NON-EVOLUTIONARY step at a time.

Right. They're all just a bunch of idiots.

No. I think they are probably quite intelligent.

However, they view data for what they want to see. They come to the table with unbreakable preconcieved notions. So any data given HAS to fit into the model they have defined. No matter if the data comes from ONE source or sources which are self-referential.

Say what you will about eveolutionary theory, but it is anything but static. Changes and revisions are done all the time. But creationists still love to point out Darwin...ignoring the fact that the scientific model has move SO far past that.

Or carbon dating. Creationists LOVE carbon dating. Because they show how WRONG it is when trying to date something really old. Well, no shit. Carbon dating is not meant for really old artifacts. And scientists know that. So OF COURSE it is going to give a wrong date for something millions of years old.

Ahh, but I am getting caught up in this argument again. Silly me.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

However, they view data for what they want to see.

THAT is exactly what evolutionists appear to be doing.

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

Quote

Beyond a shadow of a doubt?
NO, nothing is beyond a shadow of a doubt in science

I have two problems with the whole thing. First, the numbers. You can't prove them , so please don't pretend to know exactly when things happened. Say something like "We really don't know.It could have been anywhere from 10,000 yrs. to 3 million yrs.

The other problem is that all of these things happened some time in the distant past.
I should be able to walk outside and see transitional species abounding everywhere.

There was a baby recently born with three arms. Could that be one or was that just a freak of nature?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Good one

oh wait, you're not joking are you

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

However, they view data for what they want to see.

THAT is exactly what evolutionists appear to be doing.

I knew you would say that; it is even why I wrote it.

And I guess it is true. Except for the fact that the model continually changes. Let us get this straight. There has been enough experimentation and research that nearly all mainstream scientists follow the basic models. But those models are fluid. And the specifics are being tested and experimented upon everyday.

Creationists would have you believe that scientists never change. That they keep trying to prove broken hypotheses and staunchly refuse to be moved.. But they don't. When one is broken, it is refined. When it is broken enough, it is discarded. The small minority of creation "scientists" have not done enough to even come close to destroying the basic model, save for in their eyes only.

And that it is for me. I have had this argument WAY too many times to do it again when there is no point.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Creationists would have you believe that scientists never change. That they keep trying to prove broken hypotheses and staunchly refuse to be moved.. But they don't. When one is broken, it is refined. When it is broken enough, it is discarded.

Generally, I don't believe that at all. I think in this case, however, many may be. There seems to be a desperate attempt to make the pieces fit and establish fact when there is none or at least none that they can prove.

Quote

"The theory of Evolution ... will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has."
--Malcolm Muggeridge

[JackC 0]

Quote

Literary textual criticism, historical verifiability, hermeneutics, etc. is different from proving anything scientifically. Do I hold the Bible to the same standard of proof as other similar literary works? Yes.

So that would be a no then would it? You don't view the Bible with the same level of skepticism you do with science? Why does actual physical evidence warrant a higher degree of scepticism than 2000 year old hear-say?

Quote

Also, the peer-reviewed self-correcting scientific evidence you mentioned has not even come close to proving morphology through natural selection.

The Bible doesn't even come close to proving god exists but you are quite happy to not only believe that but organise your entire life around it. Why does the bible not require real, factual, in-your-hand evidence for you to believe it but museums full of evidence and thousands of scientists life work isn't enough for you to even consider natural selection?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Of course you are going to quote a Christian scholar (and not even one specializing in biology). Then again, Muggeridge was a catholic in the end and the Catholic church acknowledges at least some evolution. A little bit of irony there. Not much, but a little.

There only seems to be a desperate attempt because creationists are so vocal in their minority opinions; to the detriment of education in more and more place.

In reality, the desperation is on the opposite side. The scientists just continue to go about their business.

I said it before, the loudest are often those who are not quite sure they are correct.

Gee, I feel like I have had this conversation 400 times before. Too bad it has never evolved.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Creationists would have you believe that scientists never change. That they keep trying to prove broken hypotheses and staunchly refuse to be moved.. But they don't. When one is broken, it is refined. When it is broken enough, it is discarded.

Generally, I don't believe that at all. I think in this case, however, many may be. There seems to be a desperate attempt to make the pieces fit and establish fact when there is none or at least none that they can prove.

Quote

"The theory of Evolution ... will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has."
--Malcolm Muggeridge

Malcolm Muggeridge - Bwahahah. He wasn't a scientist. Did you ever hear him speak? I did. What a nutter.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[hairyjuan 0]

The only EXCUSE for taking the bible literally is fear and ignorance(of the true origins of ALL religions).





The attachments are from this website, which contains more truth than the average "human being"(find the definition here also) can stand, truth none the less!


www.jordanmaxwell.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Of course you are going to quote a Christian scholar (and not even one specializing in biology). Then again, Muggeridge was a catholic in the end and the Catholic church acknowledges at least some evolution. A little bit of irony there. Not much, but a little.

He was an outspoken agnostic before that but that's beside the point. I'm not Catholic but everyone "acknowledges at least some evolution." I don't know of anyone who disputes species environmental adaptation or viral/bacterial mutation in the lab. None of that points to one species gradually changing into a different species over time.

Quote

In reality, the desperation is on the opposite side. The scientists just continue to go about their business.

I said it before, the loudest are often those who are not quite sure they are correct.

Goes both ways. Neither are always correct.

Quote

Gee, I feel like I have had this conversation 400 times before. Too bad it has never evolved.

Oh... but it is.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Malcolm Muggeridge - Bwahahah. He wasn't a scientist. Did you ever hear him speak? I did. What a nutter.

Everyone is a nutter to you Kallend. You're a freakin genius. Your brain is huge. We're all like the ants you stomp on in your yard.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

the problem with creationists is that they seem to have absolutely NO curiousity as to what physical mechanisms took place in the process of creation. And they stigmatize anyone who tries to explore them as being atheistic.

That's absolutely not true.

Quote

If evolution doesn't explain the development & diversification of species, then tell me what physical mechanisms took place instead?

I don't know and we should continue to search. Just not at the expense of real science. If you're missing a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, it isn't appropriate for you to hammer in a piece that doesn't go there just to finish the picture you want. No matter how desperately you want it that way.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Malcolm Muggeridge - Bwahahah. He wasn't a scientist. Did you ever hear him speak? I did. What a nutter.

Everyone is a nutter to you Kallend. You're a freakin genius. Your brain is huge. We're all like the ants you stomp on in your yard.

Muggeridge had as much credibility to speak on science as I have to speak on ancient Chinese pottery. That is, NONE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[hairyjuan 0]

the onlything that is absolutely not true, in this thread and all other religion threads on the planet, is the bible. these people refuse to examine the truth because THEIR bible forbids them to know anything but the bible! 1 cor 2:2, look only at the cross. The point made is entirely proven by pajarito's repeated attachment of 'are you a good person' RELIGION IS MIND-CONTROL


[url]www.jordanmaxwell.com[url]

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[philh 0]

"I have two problems with the whole thing. First, the numbers. You can't prove them , so please don't pretend to know exactly when things happened. Say something like "We really don't know.It could have been anywhere from 10,000 yrs. to 3 million yrs.

The other problem is that all of these things happened some time in the distant past.
I should be able to walk outside and see transitional species abounding everywhere. "

You seem amazingly ignorant of even basic sceintific concepts. Firstly in science we dont prove anything, thats mathematics. In sciences there is evidence, not proof. No one pretends hat we know exactly wen things happened. However we do know within a resonable accuracy the age of many rocks and fossils. This is provided by many forms of independt lines of evidence form magnetic analysis, bio stratification, and radiometric dating. These all agree to margins of error of no more than 10%. When you have indepenet forms of evidene all pointing to the same conclusion, its sensible to accept it.
Your comment that it could be anywehre between 10,000 and 3 million is laughable, where do you get this from? I am still waiting for your source, is it a refereed journal? I doubt it.

Yes these events happened in the ditance past so what? does that mean they didnt leave evidence of what happened? They did.

I dont understnad your comment about seeing transitional forms now. No one knows what the future of evolution holds and so how are we going to detect current transitional forms? what we do see is evolution happeneing. I have a friend of mine who has just recieved her PHD in the biology of the AIds virus. The main problem in coming up with a vaccine is that virus evolves so rapidly we cannot keep up with treatments. Your baby example is a very good example, if three arms leads to a selective advantage and that baby has many more descendants than those with two arms then yes it may lead to evolutionary change. Evolution is the inevtiable result of genetic mutation plus natural selection.

[philh 0]

"None of that points to one species gradually changing into a different species over time. "

it absolutley does. Im going to paste a previous passage I wrote about micro evolution becoming macro evolution to demonstrate this.This was in previous debate but no one was able to refut what i said so have a go. Please read below and you will see:

You make the disctinction between macro evolution and micro evolution but in reality no such distinction is commonly made in bioligical science. All life on this Earth is made up of a genetic code from RNA and DNA strands. Each strand is a polynucleotide composed of A(adenosine), T(thymidine), C(cytidine), and G(guanosine) residues polymerized by "dehydration" synthesis in linear chains with specific sequences. Evolution occurs becase this code is copied imperfectly and the subsequent copy will either be more or les fit. The more fit will pass on their new change in the code more frequently than the less fit. So the code changes. Its simple maths, small changes will keep adding up and become big changes. please tell me how many changes in the code would qualify as micro evolution and howmany macro evolution? I think it will be a pointless task in trying to come up with a dividing line between the two and that is why biology does not tend to do so.
for example:
AGCCGTACGGTTCAACCG
mutates to:
ACGCGGACGGTTCAACCC
Is this micro evolution or macro evolution? How many letters have to change for it to become macro and how do you justify your letter count? How many generations do the changes have to be confined to? After all whatever rate of change one has, (and we know roughly what the genetic drift rate is) with enough time the entire code coud easily become nothing like its original version.

Whilst biology doesnt usually distinguish between macro and micro evolution it does distinguish events we called speciation. This is the creation of seperate species. What is a seperate species? becuase of the reasons above any defintion can never be objective. But the one that has become consesus is that a seperate species is one that cannot produce fertile offspring with its nearest relative. Speciation has been observed in the wild many times.Here are some references, there are many many many more:

Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.

Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.

Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

it absolutley does. Im going to paste a previous passage I wrote about micro evolution becoming macro evolution to demonstrate this.This was in previous debate but no one was able to refut what i said so have a go. Please read below and you will see:

You make the disctinction between macro evolution and micro evolution but in reality no such distinction is commonly made in bioligical science. All life on this Earth is made up of a genetic code from RNA and DNA strands. Each strand is a polynucleotide composed of A(adenosine), T(thymidine), C(cytidine), and G(guanosine) residues polymerized by "dehydration" synthesis in linear chains with specific sequences. Evolution occurs becase this code is copied imperfectly and the subsequent copy will either be more or les fit. The more fit will pass on their new change in the code more frequently than the less fit. So the code changes. Its simple maths, small changes will keep adding up and become big changes. please tell me how many changes in the code would qualify as micro evolution and howmany macro evolution? I think it will be a pointless task in trying to come up with a dividing line between the two and that is why biology does not tend to do so.
for example:
AGCCGTACGGTTCAACCG
mutates to:
ACGCGGACGGTTCAACCC
Is this micro evolution or macro evolution? How many letters have to change for it to become macro and how do you justify your letter count? How many generations do the changes have to be confined to? After all whatever rate of change one has, (and we know roughly what the genetic drift rate is) with enough time the entire code coud easily become nothing like its original version.

Whilst biology doesnt usually distinguish between macro and micro evolution it does distinguish events we called speciation. This is the creation of seperate species. What is a seperate species? becuase of the reasons above any defintion can never be objective. But the one that has become consesus is that a seperate species is one that cannot produce fertile offspring with its nearest relative. Speciation has been observed in the wild many times.Here are some references, there are many many many more:

Firstly, the terms macro/micro evolution aren’t terms made up by creationists. They were first coined by a Russian entomologist named Iurii Flipchenko in 1927 (Evolutionist). I agree that they are misleading terms. Acceptance of one might imply acceptance of the concept in general.

The idea that viewing species adaptation is just the starting point for a process that leads to change in species and the logic that if it can go that far then it should be able to go all the way is too simple (like the train analogy). As you said, changes occur when code is copied imperfectly. The problem is that selection always gets rid of information. It doesn’t add to it which would be required to change into something different (e.g. code necessary for development of a type of lung). Species diversification leads to a smaller and smaller gene pool which leads to less and less information available for populating a single type. The total information necessary to build on gets smaller and more diversified rather than larger which would be necessary in order to produce something more sophisticated. The reason for diversification and the reason for the distinction between micro and macro are because of the large amount of DNA variations within a species. The more adaptation we see within a species, the less potential for future adaptation there is. Hardly the trend it would need to produce what is necessary to gradually change into something else even if we were talking about millions and millions of years.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

As you said, changes occur when code is copied imperfectly. The problem is that selection always gets rid of information. It doesn’t add to it which would be required to change into something different (e.g. code necessary for development of a type of lung). Species diversification leads to a smaller and smaller gene pool which leads to less and less information available for populating a single type.

Where did you learn that from?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

As you said, changes occur when code is copied imperfectly. The problem is that selection always gets rid of information. It doesn’t add to it which would be required to change into something different (e.g. code necessary for development of a type of lung). Species diversification leads to a smaller and smaller gene pool which leads to less and less information available for populating a single type.

Where did you learn that from?

Spetner, "Not by Chance : Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution", 1997

Why? Are you saying it's wrong?