Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maranatha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello R McGeddon:
I’m rather more interested in why you want proof for evolution, but not for God.
I believe in a designer because I see the design all around me. The heavens declare the glory of God. I have faith because it is a gift of God.

Donna
 
Hello R McGeddon:

I believe in a designer because I see the design all around me. The heavens declare the glory of God. I have faith because it is a gift of God.

Donna
So what’s this so-called “design” around us?
 
Hello R McGeddon:

I believe in a designer because I see the design all around me. The heavens declare the glory of God. I have faith because it is a gift of God.

Donna
Then why do you deny His most beautiful tool for creation, evolution?

Why would evoution be an impediment to your faith?
 
So what’s this so-called “design” around us?
Are you kidding? Okay, I’ll bite. I’m typing on a keyboard looking at a monitor that I didn’t have to buy. One day it just showed up in my office fully functional. It didn’t have a designer. No matter the evidence.

Donna
 
Then why do you deny His most beautiful tool for creation, evolution?
Because all the “evidence” for evolution when it is examined by a scientist without an agenda winds up being debunked.

Donna
 
Steve:
Before I reply to your latest post would you define species for me?
Donna
A biologist might be able to give you a better definition than I can.

Species are the basic unit of taxonomic classification. There are a couple of definitions depending on what you’re working with and what your needs are.
For you and I and most of the more complex organisms around it is defined as a set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations.

For our less complex fellow travelers that reproduce asexually it is defined as a group of organisms where each generation is more or less genetically identical to each other and the previous one. The word “strain” is often used instead of species in these instances.

The utility of species as units is that, unlike other classifications, they are empirically demonstrable.
 
Just my :twocents: …
Science must be:
· observable
· measurable
· repeatable

Evolution is based on observations that are unobservable, immeasurable and unrepeatable.
For someone ranting about Ken Miller, I’m beginning to wonder if you actually read his book…

Observable: Yes. And if you argue that all of the examples we have are “just micro-evolution”, then you’re wrong, becuase there is no substantial difference between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”. It’s just two different names for the same evolution when applied to smaller or larger time scales, respectively.

Measurable: Yes. Ever heard of “darwins”?

Repeatable: Again, Yes. See above comments on “observable”.
Because all the “evidence” for evolution when it is examined by a scientist without an agenda winds up being debunked.
And I would say the exact opposite…
So who’s your example of a “scientist without an agenda”? Because I would certainly propose Ken Miller. As a practicing Roman Catholic and a cell biologist, I can’t think of a better candidate. And if you’ve read his book, you would know that he was originally in favor of young earth creationism and intelligent design…until he learned the facts that debunked them.

By the way, what is your alternative to evolution? I have a hard time imagining what it could possibly be that would not involve having had God rig the fossil record and and age of the universe to decieve modern scientific investigation…
 
For you and I and most of the more complex organisms around it is defined as a set of actually or potentially interbreeding populations.
On post #34 the experiment that I checked out was from one strain of primrose to another. I’m interested in reading up on the other type. Man coming from a predecessor or an ape. Land mammal to whale. Something on the order of that. Is there something that you can point me to directly not where I have to search page after page after…

Donna
 
For someone ranting about Ken Miller, I’m beginning to wonder if you actually read his book…
I didn’t mean to give the impression that I read his book. I watched a video of a lecture that he gave that an evolutionist thought that would do the trick in convincing me of evolution. I researched his evidence, it didn’t fly.

Donna
 
Oh please, Alec cannot provide scientific proof for evolution and he knows this.

In fact, “scientific proof” is an oxymoron much like and “scientific creationism”.
It’s funny how scientific proof was essential to progressive study in a scientific filed until it became inconvenient for proponents of speciation. This is just silly, but kids are allowed to be silly. In drug discovery, a scientific field if ever their was one, you need specific proofs of a drugs effectiveness in treating certain symptoms before you can bring it to the FDA for approval.

The difference between scientific theory and scientific proof is time honored and has a history. It is the difference between a guess and assurance.

It is a scientific fact, or proof, that if I throw a 2 pound rock at a window with a certain amount of force behind it, it will smash the window. So please stop using the recycles TalkOrigins nonsense about there being no such thing as proof in science. When you get in a car remember that.

Mel
 
On post #34 the experiment that I checked out was from one strain of primrose to another. I’m interested in reading up on the other type. Man coming from a predecessor or an ape. Land mammal to whale. Something on the order of that. Is there something that you can point me to directly not where I have to search page after page after…

Donna
Donna,

You will only get a mountain of isolated fossils that do not address this question directly.

I am going to give up this debate for the night. They cannot be convinced because they choose to believe certain people who sound scientific and bury you in words that once examined, if one has the time, leave your scratching your head and wondering if they have considered some more common sense answers or if they are just desperate to find evidence under every rock (pun intended)?

Peace,

Mel
 
You will only get a mountain of isolated fossils that do not address this question directly.
Yes Mel, I realize that. I have been round and round on this issue. Evolution is a philosophy a belief system. It is not science.

Donna
 
On post #34 the experiment that I checked out was from one strain of primrose to another. I’m interested in reading up on the other type. Man coming from a predecessor or an ape. Land mammal to whale. Something on the order of that. Is there something that you can point me to directly not where I have to search page after page after…

Donna
Acanthostega, Icthyostega, Pederpes finneyae, Tiktaalik, Tulerpeton, Greererpeton, Pandericthys, Gogonasus. Clack’s Gaining Ground. If you are too lazy or prejudiced or stupid to read and understand the evidence, then that is your problem, not a problem of the scientific community. If you want proof in 20 words of the transition from fish to tetrapod in one generation, you are setting up a ridiculous strawman and you are being childish.

And if you say again you are not convinced by this strong body of evidence, I ask you yet again, what precisely in the transition from polydactyly or the co-option of the stapes do you find unconvincing? Stop arm-waving and engage in something specific.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Aquatic tetrapods challenge the ‘drying pond’ hypothesis
Since 1990 our knowledge of ‘early’ tetrapods has been greatly expanded, with many new taxa being described. Fossil material is now known from Scotland, Greenland, Latvia, the USA, Australia, Russia, and China (Table 1).23–43 Furthermore, our understanding of the Greenland tetrapods has been revolutionized by the discovery of new material. As a consequence, a major re-evaluation of tetrapod origins has taken place, and almost every aspect of the ‘drying pond’ hypothesis has had to be discarded.
The fatal blow to the ‘drying pond’ hypothesis has been the realization that the Devonian tetrapods were predominantly aquatic in habit. New ichthyostegid material, including a well-preserved and articulated hind limb, collected by an expedition to East Greenland in 1987, revealed that Ichthyostega was polydactylous, with seven digits on the hind limb (Figure 1).44 This was a very surprising discovery because pentadactyly had been assumed to be the normal condition in ‘early’ tetrapods. Furthermore, the flattened bones and inflexible ankle of the hind limb suggests that it was more like the paddle of an elephant seal than the leg of a terrestrial animal.45 It appears that the earliest reconstruction of Ichthyostega as a creature at home in the water was more accurate than later ones portraying it on land.
Acanthostega is also much more completely known as a result of material collected by the 1987 expedition, including the first postcranial remains.47,48 It was a smaller animal than Ichthyostega and its teeth suggest that it had a different diet. Several articulated specimens were found in a single lens of rock, interpreted as a possible flash flood deposit.49 The remarkable preservation meant that some delicate structures, not often preserved in fossil tetrapods, are known in Acanthostega. The gill skeleton was fish-like50 and it has been suggested that Acanthostega had internal gills somewhat similar to those of the Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus). Acanthostega had a tail with fin rays, even larger than that of Ichthyostega (Figure 2). The fin rays also extended further beneath the tail, in similar fashion to those of a lungfish, suggesting that Acanthostega was a thoroughly aquatic creature. This conclusion is supported by the morphology of the fore and hind limbs which are difficult to interpret as load-bearing structures; rather, they appear to be designed for swimming. As with Ichthyostega, perhaps the most extraordinary feature was the number of digits. An articulated fore limb revealed eight digits in a paddle-like arrangement (Figure 3). Clack51 speculates that they may have been enclosed in some kind of webbing.
Most evolutionists had assumed that the origin of limbs with digits was synonymous with the vertebrate invasion of the land. This led to the popular ‘conquest of the land’ idea, typified by artistic reconstructions and museum displays of fish crawling out of Devonian pools. However, the latest thinking about the aquatic or semi-aquatic nature of the Devonian tetrapods has led modern-day evolutionists to reject this assumption. They now argue that the key tetrapod characters evolved for a shallow-water existence and were only later co-opted for terrestrial use. The new generation of Darwinists dismisses the ‘drying pond’ hypothesis as untestable story-telling, and increasingly relies on cladistics as an alternative framework for understanding the transition. The cladistic approach to the fish-tetrapod transition focuses on determining the sequence of acquisition of key tetrapod characteristics, from which inferences are drawn about the nature of the transition.53 We should recognize, however, that the cladistic methodology is inherently Darwinian and assumes from the outset the continuity of life. By its very nature, cladistics is insensitive to the discontinuities which creationists believe characterize living things.54

Read more here:answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/tetrapod.asp
 
Aquatic tetrapods challenge the ‘drying pond’ hypothesis
…
Read more here:answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/tetrapod.asp
If you get your science from AiG (a non-scientific fundamentalist website), no wonder you are confused.

Where did I say anything about the so-called ‘drying pond hypothesis’ No scientist holds this hypothesis. It is a strawman. Nothing in this propaganda piece addresses the current evidence for fish to tetrapod transition laid out in great detail in, for example, Jennifer Clack’s 2002 book.

What, exactly, is your problem with the evidence? I repeat again - what do you find unconvincing about the transition from polydactyly (contrary to the incorrect AiG claims, polydactyly is not unexpected in a transition from ray-fins); and the co-option of the stapes, a bone that in fish forms a major part of the skull, but in land dwelling animals is co-opted to hearing?

The bottom line is that Acanthostega does not have fins - it has polydactylous feet. It, and other transitionals have, like all tetrapods - amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, crocodilians, birds, mammals and so on - the same major bone structure - humerus, radius and ulna; and femur, fibula and tibia unlike a ray finned fish - while maintaining many fish-like characteristics such as gill breathing.

What about all the other Devonian and Carboniferous tetrapods (there are *dozens *of known examples) that represent a finely graduated series in all of the key characteristics of the fish to tetrapod transition, ending up with lung breathing, an ear, pentadactyly and the loss of the intermedium. The AiG article, by contrast, is special pleading of teh worst kind - refutation by strawman.

Give us *your *opinion on the transition from polydactyly, the establishment of the tetrapod skeletal limb structure after early variation, and the co-option of the stapes from the skull to the ear.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
I am going to give up this debate for the night. They cannot be convinced because they choose to believe certain people who sound scientific and bury you in words that once examined, if one has the time, leave your scratching your head and wondering if they have considered some more common sense answers or if they are just desperate to find evidence under every rock (pun intended)?
Interesting comment. Several of us here are actually scientists, so what is it exactly that you are saying? Are we lying about what we say? Are we too stupid to see that which you see so clearly? What scientific credentials do you have to make such charges?

Please do list the papers that you have written and published in peer-reviewed science journals that support your claims. I can’t wait to change my mind based on the evidence you have that ALL the evidence we have supporting evolution can be explained any other way than by common descent.

Peace

Tim
 
What, exactly, is your problem with the evidence?
If I may, Alec, let me give you my opinion regarding Donna based on our conversations on another thread. It is simple. She is smarter than you or I. She has no science background, but she knows people who consider her pretty smart, so she is obviously more qualified to evaluate the evidence than you or I or Steve or Phil or masterjedi747 or any of the many other scientists on this forum. The problem for you is that she doesn’t understand the basics of science to even understand what you are talking about. Her bluster is just that - bluster.

Peace

Tim
 
Interesting comment. Several of us here are actually scientists

So Tim. Can you show me where I can view experiments that shows Man coming from a predecessor like an ape. Land mammal to whale?

Donna
 
It’s funny how scientific proof was essential to progressive study in a scientific filed until it became inconvenient for proponents of speciation.
What parts of the observed instances of speciation posted above do you not consider “proof”?
This is just silly, but kids are allowed to be silly. In drug discovery, a scientific field if ever their was one, you need specific proofs of a drugs effectiveness in treating certain symptoms before you can bring it to the FDA for approval.
Medicine and pharmaceutics (until very recently and even still) are empirical sciences not theoretical ones. Like engineering the health sciences are related to and overlap with but aren’t the same as the natural sciences.

Empiricism alone is OK for some things but it isn’t the entire picture. It is only part of science. Without a theoretical underpinning you can’t successfully use inductive reasoning.

If you’re stuck in an empirical mindset (like the world was before the scientific revolution) then progress is very slow.
The difference between scientific theory and scientific proof is time honored and has a history. It is the difference between a guess and assurance.

It is a scientific fact, or proof, that if I throw a 2 pound rock at a window with a certain amount of force behind it, it will smash the window.
A proof of what?
That rocks break windows? That is an observation not a proof. In itself is fairly limited.
But if you used your observation to demonstrate that F=MA and then used that to calculate how to launch moon rocket or an artillery shell then you may have the beginnings of science.
So please stop using the recycles TalkOrigins nonsense about there being no such thing as proof in science.
What parts (specifically) of TalkOrigins do you think are nonsense?
It seems kinda unsporting (to say the least) for you to demand “proof” and then offhandedly dismiss the source of the offered proof without specified reasons other than an outdated definition of science.
When you get in a car remember that.

Mel
Funny you should mention cars; made of metals and fueled by petroleum.

Do you suppose that the ores and crude oil that go into your car were discovered by purely empirical means?

Do you suppose that Exxon randomly drills holes in the earth today? Or do you suppose that they have a theoretical understanding of geology to allow them to have a higher degree of confidence to drill here rather than there?
How do they do this? We can’t create mountain ranges or coal seams in the laboratory. So according to you they don’t have any science just some speculation and guesses.
 
If I may, Alec, let me give you my opinion regarding Donna based on our conversations on another thread. It is simple. She is smarter than you or I. She has no science background, but she knows people who consider her pretty smart, so she is obviously more qualified to evaluate the evidence than you or I or Steve or Phil or masterjedi747 or any of the many other scientists on this forum. The problem for you is that she doesn’t understand the basics of science to even understand what you are talking about. Her bluster is just that - bluster.

Peace

Tim
Aha! There you go. I had this odd feeling of not being understood, but it seems it’s because Donna is smarter than all of us. She is so smart that she can give up the need to understand the basics of science and cut straight to her (predetermined) conclusion.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top