B
Brad
Guest
It sure has!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Brad
Guest
Umm.There is little in science that can be proved beyond all doubt. Most accept a working model that is not in conflict with the existing archeological record. Remember that there are many many disciplines within science that depend on or support evolution.
Gravity
Earth is round
And that theory of relativity is pretty darn hard to prove false
Because much depends on evolutionary theory doesn’t make facts of the conclusions some scientists have made based on this theory.
B
Brad
Guest
1 exception. There are more opposing examples on this thread of merciless criticism of opposition scientists.You are wrong, there is a counterexample here: Ultraconserved Elements in the Genome: Are They Indispensable? Some scientists have found a result that goes against the current prediction of evolutionary theory. The theory says tht ultraconserved elements should have an essential function and that deleting them should be deleterious. When these elements were deleted, no deleterious effects showed up. These scientists were not attacked, but praised for doing a good piece of scientific research. The theory will have to be adjusted to take into account this new evidence:The discovery that deletion of ultraconserved elements does not render mice unviable or infertile is a major challenge to our understanding of how highly conserved elements of the genome persist and what their functions are, says Ahituv. He and his colleagues are pursuing research aimed at answering these compelling new questions.
Saying a post is bad because you disagree with the argument is ad hominem (extended implication is Brad writes bad posts - therefore he cannot express a reliable argument). I’m not hung up a creationism but I am a bit ticked off at the fraudulent evolution “proofs” that were in my science text book in grade school.I was not using an ad hominem argument, that would be like saying “Brad is bald and has athletes foot, therefore when he says 1 + 1 = 2 he must be wrong.” I am not criticising you, I am criticising the poor creationist PRATTs (Points Refuted a Thousand Times) you are using and the creationist sources you got them from.
rossum
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Evolution is my home-boy.
R
rossum
Guest
You presumably missed the appropriate section in the reference I gave. There are transitional forms given in Prediction 1.4 for reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, ape-humans, legged whales and legged seacows.Unless I’m missing something, the only transitional fossils actuall[y] depicted are ape-to-human
Neanderthals are extinct.Where is neanderthal man today if we still have apes and humans?
Some Americans claim to be descended from Europeans, if so then why are there still Europeans? Some of the population of our common ancestor with the chimps evolved into us, and others evolved into chimps. Just as some Europeans moved to America and became Americans while others remained in Europe and are now Europeans.Why do we still have apes?
I did warn you. I asked for “the origin of life”, I did not ask for “the origin of material life”. As I said creationists have no explanation for the origin of life. Supernatural life is still life. What is your explanation for the origin of life?Creationists have a very solid explanation. Something supernatural brought life into existence (i.e. beyond science - sorry).
It is a vital point as the modern leading proponents of evolutionary theory are turning into God-bashers - they are all coming to the conclusion that God in unnecessary(in fact irrational) - now how can that be? And why are we not surprised that the trend (at least in public schools) is for children to question their belief in God?
Here is what I am referring to:
Many atheists, such as Dawkins, use evolution as a stick to beat God. Many atheists use some of the more bloodthirsty parts of the Bible as a stick to beat God. That is not a reason to discard evolution, any more than it is a reason to discard the Bible. Atheists will use whatever arguments they have to hand. If you don’t like those books then read works by Christian evolutionists:The God Delusion - Dawkins
The End of Faith - Harris
The Failed Hypothesis - Stenger
[
All species are well suited to their environments. The problem for many species is that their preferred environments are disappearing. Species that live well with humans are generally doing well: rice, wheat, mice, cockroaches, maize, pigeons, dogs etc. since humans are spreading over more of the earth’s surface.
rossumNothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
exceptionsHow is this evidence? This is theory based mainly on genetic differences.
A demonstration of the danger of this theory. Labeling everyone with a genetic defect as unfit.
And just about everyone has an appendix - so who is the most fit - someone without one? Someone with no genetic defects?
](http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/)Who is the most fit species today?
S
steveandersen
Guest
Short answers:I get assaulted a lot with the Abiogenesis argument and the 2nd law of thermodynamics as anti-evolution “proofs”. I 'd appreciate a couple of short answers to deal with this, but have not the scientifc knowledge to do so.
Evolution doesn’t address abiogenesis at all. It doesn’t matter to the robustness of the theory whether life arose via combinations of carbon chains, the Hand Of God, spores from planet X, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Evolution just talks about what happens once there is life.
The Second law states that the entropy of an isolated system will increase over time until equilibrium is achieved. (And folks us this as an argument as to why simple molecules can’t form more complex ones) HOWEVER. The Earth is not an isolated system. There is a big bright yellow thing in the sky pouring energy down on us every day. The entropy of the sun is increasing. It is perfectly possible (and absolutely necessary for life) for entropy to decrease in one location provided that work is provided from the outside.
E
edwest2
Guest
I think life looks designed because it is. There are no transitional fossils, just various ape-like beings that have gone extinct. Neanderthal was human and interbred with other humans. Even in the case of bacteria, regardless of their ability to exchange bits of DNA between themselves, including different “species,” they remain bacteria. The experiment with fruit flies did not create anything other than fruit flies.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
S
steveandersen
Guest
The “looks like” argument can be problematicI think life looks designed because it is.
Schools of fish “look” like they have a leader but they don’t
The theories of emerging complexity can be used to show how apparently complex systems can emerge from relatively simple rules.
(that of course doesn’t answer Who or What made the rules but that all depends on who you are debating.)
all fossils are transitionalThere are no transitional fossils,
Maybe, maybe not.just various ape-like beings that have gone extinct. Neanderthal was human and interbred with other humans.
How would you prove that?
Even still how would that disprove that speciation wasn’t occurring.
Speciation occurs over time and space. The donkey and horse are examples of species that have been separated long enough to become distinct but not so long so that they can’t reproduce.
but we have seen new species (strains) of bacteria or Fly, wihich is all evolution says needs to occur.Even in the case of bacteria, regardless of their ability to exchange bits of DNA between themselves, including different “species,” they remain bacteria. The experiment with fruit flies did not create anything other than fruit flies.
If you want new genera, families or orders to arise…that takes time. God has been at this quite a long time. Humans have only been observing it for a short while.
E
edwest2
Guest
“all fossils are transitional”? Dinosaurs were around and now they’re gone, plus a bunch of other animals that were once around. I don’t think gills on their way to becoming lungs can be proved. In any case, most of what is referred to as transitional is still alive today.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Watch the trap here - different does not mean evolved. Beneficial does not mean more information. These new strains do not show an increase in information.
S
steveandersen
Guest
I never understood what you mean by “information”Watch the trap here - different does not mean evolved. Beneficial does not mean more information. These new strains do not show an increase in information.
E
edwest2
Guest
If I might comment. Whatever changes were noted in the fruit flies all depended on existing genetic information, nothing new (i.e. no new information) was created.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Yeah - I do remember discussing this before.I never understood what you mean by “information”
Information
an increase of genetic information would be like a computer code that replicates or mutates and the result is a more complex language
S
steveandersen
Guest
HmmmmmYeah - I do remember discussing this before.
Information
an increase of genetic information would be like a computer code that replicates or mutates and the result is a more complex language
I’m not sure if I buy that analogy.
If there was a miscopy in a code (computer or genetic) so that instead of ABCD you now have ABCCD how is that not added “information”?
Sure in a computer random sequences can be gibberish but in biochemistry it can be the blueprint for a different molecule.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
“There are no transitional fossils” is just another creationist lie spewed forth on a regular basis. No matter how many times paleontologists and others have refuted this claptrap, out it comes again. See the discussion on Talk Origins, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.There are no transitional fossils, just various ape-like beings that have gone extinct.
God bless,
Ed
I suspect that on many of these canards we are dealing with just plain invincible ignorance. Nothing that science could do in hundreds of years could shake the faith of the scientifically untutored that there are no transitional fossils. In fact, there are beautiful fossil sequences for hominids, cetacea, and countless other clades and subclades.
This invincible ignorance is similar to what an Orthodox priest once told me at a conference on human overpopulation: there could never even in theory exist a problem of humans exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth, because God would not allow it. What can one do in the face of such ignorance and denial? Pray that God will open minds and hearts!
Petrus
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
sorry, I guess I was unclear here. What I meant by depend up, is that its their model too, and is so because it best fits their evidence. No rational scientist clings to a theory that doesnt advance his research and is counter to the facts.Umm.
Gravity
Earth is round
And that theory of relativity is pretty darn hard to prove false
Because much depends on evolutionary theory doesn’t make facts of the conclusions some scientists have made based on this theory.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I’m forced to agree. For some reason the need to make the Book the perfect repository of Truth escapes me. But obviously it causes grown folks with otherwise perfectly useable minds to turn into jokes as they cut and paste these silly arguments all over the net. They never answer why or how this conspiracy is continued. They never explain why science is okay as long as the lightswitch works or the car turns over, but scientists can’t be trusted to report honestly their findings on geology, or biology, or paleontology, or antropology or the 300 subsets of each.“There are no transitional fossils” is just another creationist lie spewed forth on a regular basis. No matter how many times paleontologists and others have refuted this claptrap, out it comes again. See the discussion on Talk Origins, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.
I suspect that on many of these canards we are dealing with just plain invincible ignorance. Nothing that science could do in hundreds of years could shake the faith of the scientifically untutored that there are no transitional fossils. In fact, there are beautiful fossil sequences for hominids, cetacea, and countless other clades and subclades.
This invincible ignorance is similar to what an Orthodox priest once told me at a conference on human overpopulation: there could never even in theory exist a problem of humans exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth, because God would not allow it. What can one do in the face of such ignorance and denial? Pray that God will open minds and hearts!
Petrus
Based on what I’ve been reading about fundamentalism, its really a psychological thing. For some reason, some folks need an answer to life all neatly tied up in one convenient package. I’d be really interested to listen to a psychologist/psychiatrist talk about this mindset. We need all the help we can get to fight against this fundamentalism that pervades our planet whether it be in the guise of Islamic, Christian, or Jewish “Truth”.
E
edwest2
Guest
Unfortunately, the current New Atheists (see the article in Wired magazine) have decided on a new assault on centuries old teaching. Again, this is nothing new.
The debates are the same since those shortly after the publication of Origin of the Species. It ignores the fact that religious schools and institutions have been teaching the same things for centuries. It obscures the fact that atheists, secular humanists, freethinkers, brights, radicals, leftists, communists and others who view religion as the biggest problem facing mankind need ammunition to add to their simple disbelief.
This is an attempt by those who believe in mechanistic naturalism to storm the gates of the Christian world. They cannot and will not succeed. As far as Christianity is concerned, our God told us to love our enemies. Our Church teaches that war is always a last resort and is always a bad thing. The word “fundamentalist” is used to identify those willing to harm others for their beliefs. Our religion does not teach that, but it still doesn’t stop the occasional celebrity from saying “radical Christianity” or “fundamentalist Christianity,” implying Christian “fundamentalists” are ready to go out and kill people. Not true.
As far as science. What has been obscured has been the deep faith of various great scientists who became scientists partly because they believed that God created an orderly universe and that they, in turn, would find orderly processes in their investigations, not random, it just turned out that way processes. There is an attempt to rewrite history when a scientist like Sam Harris refers to his fellow scientists who are also religious as “pod people.” And any religious talk among them as the “alien hiss of religion.” Religion was not alien to science, but it is clear that men like him want it to be. Which puts the lie to the idea that “modern science” and religion are compatible.
Gravity, electricity, chemistry, cars, none of these things can be used as ideolodical sledgehammers against the religious, but evolutionary biology can. And that is the problem.
By reading other forums I have come to the inescapable conclusion that 1) Science is not concerned about God one way or the other, BUT all the anti-God people are saying that they must conclude that there is NO evidence for God, and therefore, he does not exist. 2) Based on this foundational premise, once those here and elsewhere convince you that evolution is a fact (although NO American scientific web site calls it anything other than a theory), then they will guide you by the light of “reason” to accept that there is no God. Get it?
To my brothers and sisters in Christ, Pope Benedict has made it clear, there is some evidence for evolution but he was not specific. He has also referred to Pope John Paul II’s often quoted remark that “evolution is more than a hypothesis” in the following way: “He had his reasons for saying that…” but Pope Benedict did not reveal what those reasons were. I encourage you to rely on further guidance from the Church. Whatever evolution may have occurred, it is not more important that the Holy Bible, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ or the guidance given by the Holy Father.
God bless,
Ed
The debates are the same since those shortly after the publication of Origin of the Species. It ignores the fact that religious schools and institutions have been teaching the same things for centuries. It obscures the fact that atheists, secular humanists, freethinkers, brights, radicals, leftists, communists and others who view religion as the biggest problem facing mankind need ammunition to add to their simple disbelief.
This is an attempt by those who believe in mechanistic naturalism to storm the gates of the Christian world. They cannot and will not succeed. As far as Christianity is concerned, our God told us to love our enemies. Our Church teaches that war is always a last resort and is always a bad thing. The word “fundamentalist” is used to identify those willing to harm others for their beliefs. Our religion does not teach that, but it still doesn’t stop the occasional celebrity from saying “radical Christianity” or “fundamentalist Christianity,” implying Christian “fundamentalists” are ready to go out and kill people. Not true.
As far as science. What has been obscured has been the deep faith of various great scientists who became scientists partly because they believed that God created an orderly universe and that they, in turn, would find orderly processes in their investigations, not random, it just turned out that way processes. There is an attempt to rewrite history when a scientist like Sam Harris refers to his fellow scientists who are also religious as “pod people.” And any religious talk among them as the “alien hiss of religion.” Religion was not alien to science, but it is clear that men like him want it to be. Which puts the lie to the idea that “modern science” and religion are compatible.
Gravity, electricity, chemistry, cars, none of these things can be used as ideolodical sledgehammers against the religious, but evolutionary biology can. And that is the problem.
By reading other forums I have come to the inescapable conclusion that 1) Science is not concerned about God one way or the other, BUT all the anti-God people are saying that they must conclude that there is NO evidence for God, and therefore, he does not exist. 2) Based on this foundational premise, once those here and elsewhere convince you that evolution is a fact (although NO American scientific web site calls it anything other than a theory), then they will guide you by the light of “reason” to accept that there is no God. Get it?
To my brothers and sisters in Christ, Pope Benedict has made it clear, there is some evidence for evolution but he was not specific. He has also referred to Pope John Paul II’s often quoted remark that “evolution is more than a hypothesis” in the following way: “He had his reasons for saying that…” but Pope Benedict did not reveal what those reasons were. I encourage you to rely on further guidance from the Church. Whatever evolution may have occurred, it is not more important that the Holy Bible, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ or the guidance given by the Holy Father.
God bless,
Ed
F
freesoulhope
Guest
Although I sympathize with your post, I have to point out that “Random processes" does not equal “random-existence”. The way in which my body came to be, may have come about by random variations; but it does not necessarily follow that my coming-into-being is ultimately a galactic “accident”.As far as science. What has been obscured has been the deep faith of various great scientists who became scientists partly because they believed that God created an orderly universe and that they, in turn, would find orderly processes in their investigations, not random, it just turned out that way processes.
Ed
In order for this particular Universe to exists, (a place where it is obvious that accidents and random variations occur), there has to be an “underlying order” such as the natural-laws that drive the universal system. These natural Laws have not “evolved”, and therefore cannot be explained by “random variations”, and neither can the universe explain its existence, since in-order for the universe to exist, such “Universal Laws” would have to be in place, preceding or simultaneously coming in-to-being with the Big Bang event; it would be logically impossible for the Natural Laws that made the Big bang to come after that fact.
Everything needs a Logical cause or explanation. Because Natural Laws cannot be explain by Random variations or evolution, (since it is impossible for random variations to ultimately “precede” order) the existence of Natural Laws strongly point to an ultimate cause that exist outside the time and space of the initial Big Bang-Singularity. So in reality, the “Random Variations” and “Accidents” that you hate some much, actually testify to the underlying orderliness of our reality, which you seem to think becomes non-existent with the theory of evolution. The illusion of "Naturalism" only works so far before falling into an illogical, paradoxical tangent; tragically going off the rails of true science.
God is wiser then you think; but are you wise enough to see it?
E
edwest2
Guest
This goes back to the God drop kicked the universe and the natural laws into existence and everything flowed from that. Not true. God is, has been and will be, a part of everyday human life. All those who are anti-God want to do is say: religion is evil, God, any god, is like Santa Claus. It’s time to “grow up” and out of our primitive past and embrace whoever has the current hot book or philosophy, who will be replaced with the next current hot book or philosophy. Man and man’s knowledge (the god of Science) are greater than anybody’s god.
I’ve heard it all before.
God bless,
Ed
I’ve heard it all before.
God bless,
Ed
- Status
- Not open for further replies.