Spirituality
22 Feb 08
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by MexicoNobody has tried to defend evolution. I and others are merely trying to more accurately define the various aspects of it.
Please please please stop defending evolution here, you just give them something else to play semantics with..... Which isn't the point of the thread.....
You are right though that nobody has attempted to actually answer your question.
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by Mexicohttp://www.creationontheweb.com
Well argued timebombted........ Sorry for giving out I just don't want my question sidestepped and this turned into yet another defense of evolution..... As to my patients, I'd quite like to be made a saint actually, the Irony would be quite amusing.... First Atheist saint..... Hahahah...
I've heard they have some good science but never actually seen any...
i think this one is well elaborated.
check the "do you have questions".
some use scientific arguments to explain things. Problem is... they don't know much about science OR they're trying to manipulate deliberately people with science language.
Example: using carbon dating to say dinosaur bones are 15k yrs old, ONLY.
(i emailed the author, he emailed me back with a scan from the original test, giving confidence results for the samples!). He seemed quite serious, but is he aware of what's a carbon dating?...
27 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou stated you were happy with species generating variety?
You believe that is less likely than non-living material becoming
alive with no plan, purpose, or design guiding the process and then
getting:
the non-living dirt give us all the dogs
the non-living dirt give us all the primates
the non-living dirt give us all the mammals
the non-living dirt give us all the tetrapods
the non-living dirt give us all ...[text shortened]... all the chordates
the non-living dirt give us all the multi cellular life
Just asking
Kelly
Can you please answer the question so I know where the limits of your theory end?
I however will answer your questions:
I believe the TOE explains how single cell life evolved to every living species we have today, it has a mass of evidence in its favour. I'm sure it will grow and get tweaked a little as we acquire more knowledge, but wrong it is not.
As always you try to mix evolution with abiogenesis, and as always you mistakingly believe we need plans, direction or design....... thats the illusion created by an amount of time you cannot comprehend.
The theories of non living to living are obviously not as sound as the TOE, but the evidence indicates it is possible. Yes I believe their was checmical evolution to create the first cell, whether this happened in dirt, shallows pools, deep ocean or even panspermia........ I have no favour to at this stage. Just because it is weaker, I'm not gonna resort to a "god of the gaps" attitude, thats just ignorance. It just means the origin of the first cell needs more study.
In summary:
Chemical evolution + TOE = the diversity of life we see today, no god is needed and never will be needed to explain anything.
FYI - before you start picking at my use of the word believe..... this is based on evidence not faith based. Hope you can see this is totally different.
As always a pleasure to chat with you KJ :0)
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by KellyJayAs stated in the original post this isn't a question about origins...... And yes actually I do believe Abiogenisis is quite possible... However its not necessary for origins to be explained for the theory evolution..... It's sufficient to say process X gave us LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) and its predecessors and contemporaries and then from there on life has developed via the process of evolution....
You believe that is less likely than non-living material becoming
alive with no plan, purpose, or design guiding the process and then
getting:
the non-living dirt give us all the dogs
the non-living dirt give us all the primates
the non-living dirt give us all the mammals
the non-living dirt give us all the tetrapods
the non-living dirt give us all ...[text shortened]... all the chordates
the non-living dirt give us all the multi cellular life
Just asking
Kelly
Once again though this isn't my point and Ill reiterate it again in a different way.... There is currently a whole series of debates about whether or not the alternative theories to evolution which fit with creation should be thought in science classes, I want to hear them... And I want it openly debated whether they have any scientific basis. If they do then there is no reason they shouldn't be thought in science classes, if they don't then there is no reason they should.....
I wanted to derive this argument from forcing the fact that literal bible interpretation and science are by definition incompatible and go from there.....
Definition of evolution isn't necessary here..... Although it has been sufficently defined here for you to present your alternatives.....
27 Feb 08
Originally posted by serigadoGranted their bit about pressures a valid(ish) Idea. But their understanding of plate tectonics (PT) is catastrophically (to use their own words) flawed. Mobile tectonic plates and subduction zones can blatantly be observed in Japan.... And greece, and several other places. They can actually use satellite tracking to observe and predict plate movement. Plus all the other evidence..... Magnetic striping in the atlantic. The African/red sea rift system.... Density variations in crust... And on and on..... And on....
these guys are great:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1014
this one actually makes sense.
Their Ideas about PT are fundamentally flawed at a basic level. And that engineer who did the Phd in geology used a finite modeling system which I'm pretty sure if I played with enough I could provide evidence of the earth being made almost entirely of cheese If I wanted to.
Also their list of creation scientists is quite impressive although it has 3 true geologists on it, all of which specialize in recently deposited geological disciplines or engineering and physics related geology. No metamorphic petrologists, no radiometric geochemists, no anybody who'll have specialized in the age of the earth or done any research on the topic.
I love also how they make a big huzza about their scientist publishing in non secular and prestigious peer review journals...... But fail to provide titles for any of these papers..... Possibly because the published paper has little if anything to do with the topic at hand.....
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's not the question, bright eyes. He's asking either to support the belief with science, or claim it's unscientific. It's not that hard... I have many unscientific views... blue is better than green, blond is the best hair color. I won't try to support it with science, and I won't insult anyone who tells me to back it up with science. I'll just say "It's not scientific." Try that.
You want to box knowledge and truth into this nice little package that
only has acceptable 'theories' within it, fine by me, but that does not
mean you are getting it right, it only means your models are workable.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have to answer a question before you get to ask one... you shouldn't even be here if you don't know what evolution is. Science is definite, there are no interpretations based on personal preferences.
I'm not sure what you want, I'm not asking you to defend your views
on evolution, I'm asking you to tell me what you think it is! We can
worry about defending it once we know what we are talking about.
Until that time nothing can be said for or against it, because no one
really knows what is it is [b]you mean by the word evolution, or maybe
better ...[text shortened]... nyone
give you a viable alternative when we don't know what we are
comparing it to?
Kelly[/b]
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by timebombtedWhere it ends, I don't see it happening beyond that in life now, if you
You stated you were happy with species generating variety?
Can you please answer the question so I know where the limits of your theory end?
I however will answer your questions:
I believe the TOE explains how single cell life evolved to every living species we have today, it has a mass of evidence in its favour. I'm sure it will grow and get t ...[text shortened]... Hope you can see this is totally different.
As always a pleasure to chat with you KJ :0)
believe it does it is up to you to show it! Pointing to fossils does not
prove this there is such a massive change in life. We do not have
fossils that show us a line of life between todays life and the first ones
instead we see life that could have just as easly be its own kind.
Kelly
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by UzumakiAiCall it science, or whatever you want, bright eyes. So bright eyes if you
That's not the question, bright eyes. He's asking either to support the belief with science, or claim it's unscientific. It's not that hard... I have many unscientific views... blue is better than green, blond is the best hair color. I won't try to support it with science, and I won't insult anyone who tells me to back it up with science. I'll just say "It's not scientific." Try that.
don't want to insult I suggest you stop using verbage like 'bright eyes". Can you see how "bright eyes" that might not be recieved well?
My point in my question was that do you think 'science' is the only
way to grasp reality? If it is in your view I think you have blinders on.
Kelly
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by UzumakiAiLook at the title of where your debating! It is a Spiritual board, so
You have to answer a question before you get to ask one... you shouldn't even be here if you don't know what evolution is. Science is definite, there are no interpretations based on personal preferences.
BUDDY, you don't like my posting about evoltuion to bad for you, if
you want a board where only people you agree with post I can tell you
this is not going to be that place! Here you are going to get other
views that may or may not agree with yours, get use to it.
Kelly
28 Feb 08
Originally posted by KellyJayActually we do have fossils. Those fossils do show most of us a line of life between todays life and the first ones, you just choose not to be shown. My objection is that your statement implies the fossils don't exist when the truth is that it is your interpretation of the fossils that you dispute and not their existence.
We do not have fossils that show us a line of life between todays life and the first ones instead we see life that could have just as easly be its own kind.
Kelly
Even your 'just as easily' phrase is really just your personal opinion and would not stand up to scrutiny. By that I mean that the patterns in the fossils are so distinct that to assume random chance (as implied by your 'just as easily phrase'😉 would be wrong. In fact it contradicts your own claims relating to ID where you claim a pattern indicates intelligence - here you are now claiming that a pattern could mean nothing.
28 Feb 08
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (an evolutionist) recognized the problem for Darwinism in the fossil record. The problem he noted was the lack of finding of thousands if not millions of examples of transitional fossils by now. He wrote:
Actually we do have fossils. Those fossils do show most of us a line of life between todays life and the first ones, you just choose not to be shown. My objection is that your statement implies the fossils don't exist when the truth is that it is your interpretation of the fossils that you dispute and not their existence.
Even your 'just as easily' phras ttern indicates intelligence - here you are now claiming that a pattern could mean nothing.
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1). Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; Morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2) Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."
[ "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Stephen J. Gould, Natural History 86 (1977) 13-14 ]
This evidence that evolutionist Gould sites could be considered as what would be expected from a creationist model. That is fossil types appearing suddenly, fully formed, and remaining the same until extinction without any directional change.
We know that he proposed "Punctuated Equilibria" as an alternative to classic Darwinian gradualism. But the evidence could also lead to the abrupt appearance of some form of intelligent design creationism. Salvaging Darwinism is not the only alternative.