Creation/Evolution

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by jaywill
[b] I think that this is a logical fallacy. Agendas do not make Evolution wrong simply for that sake.

You have to examine the ideas. The motives of the theorist is secondary.

Passion of belief does not make the belief right or wrong simply because of the passion.

I'm afraid you have missed the point. ...[text shortened]... n't think it is necessarily the case that the faculty of reason is where the deficiency lies.[/b]

the faculty of reason is where the deficiency lies

is it not in the interests of everyone to try to exercise their faculty of reasoning to the best of their ability, as one would exercise a muscle? thus, this type of reasoning 'im bored', 'or this does not interest me', while it may be true, does nothing for the reasoning process! when one puts aside ones own personal agenda (i think going Devils advocate is probably the best way of doing this, for then one becomes impartial), then arguments both for and against may be evaluated.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the faculty of reason is where the deficiency lies

is it not in the interests of everyone to try to exercise their faculty of reasoning to the best of their ability, as one would exercise a muscle? thus, this type of reasoning 'im bored', 'or this does not interest me', while it may be true, does nothing for the reasoning process! when one puts ...[text shortened]... this, for then one becomes impartial), then arguments both for and against may be evaluated.

I don't think that's quite right. We have only a finite time and we would do well to exercise our intellect on topics that interest us. I can understand why debates between creationists and rationalists might bore people after a while.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I don't think that's quite right. We have only a finite time and we would do well to exercise our intellect on topics that interest us. I can understand why debates between creationists and rationalists might bore people after a while.

i see it as the difference between watching a sport and actively participating in it. chess for example is deemed to be quite a dull spectator sport, but if you are at the board and you are the one trying to apply your art, then it is an entirely different experience, thus it is the same with debate. It not simply the assimilation of material from other sources, or the exchange of ideas, but originality of thought, the examination of a premise to see whether it is valid. it does not matter whether it is Obamas birth certificate, or Bobby Fischers personal belongings, or some scriptural reference or the evolutionary hypothesis, it seems to me that participation is where it is at, the exchange of ideas, the ebb and flow of argument and counter argument. i have to say that I am interested in almost everything, with the exception of golf.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have demonstrated nothing of the sort, you failed to even address the original premise, let me remind you of it noobster, that if the main function, according to the evolutionary hypothesis is for the organism to pass the genetic code from one generation to the next, then the only way for it to be accomplished is through procreation of differing your equating humans with animals, its is a non argument as far as sexulaity is concerned!

I believe we're animals evolved from monkeys and part of the fabric of nature of this remarkable planet. You don't think so, fair enough.

Homosexual people are who they are, you may think they are sinners and 'unnatural' because of a book written a long, long time ago, fair enough. I sincerely hope one of your children turns out gay so you have to face up to it, just like Dick Cheney. He held similar beliefs like yours until his daughter 'came out', now he keeps quiet.

You claimed homosexuality was unnatural, i take that to mean, not part of nature. I've showed that is not the case.

I have no idea what the rest of your drivel was going on about. Hammy & Hazel? WTF!!!!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I believe we're animals evolved from monkeys and part of the fabric of nature of this remarkable planet. You don't think so, fair enough.

Homosexual people are who they are, you may think they are sinners and 'unnatural' because of a book written a long, long time ago, fair enough. I sincerely hope one of your children turns out gay so you have to fac ...[text shortened]...

I have no idea what the rest of your drivel was going on about. Hammy & Hazel? WTF!!!!

now noobster, watch your language! its not our fault the Aussies are 249-1 and the world is full of grumbling pommies!,

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I believe we're animals evolved from monkeys and part of the fabric of nature of this remarkable planet. You don't think so, fair enough.

Homosexual people are who they are, you may think they are sinners and 'unnatural' because of a book written a long, long time ago, fair enough. I sincerely hope one of your children turns out gay so you have to fac ...[text shortened]...

I have no idea what the rest of your drivel was going on about. Hammy & Hazel? WTF!!!!

no noobster you have tried to state that animal behaviour should be equated with human behaviour, we have tried to show why this should not be the case, for animals practice incest, paedophilia, infanticide, etc etc, practices which are, or should be abhorrent to humans.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no noobster you have tried to state that animal behaviour should be equated with human behaviour, we have tried to show why this should not be the case, for animals practice incest, paedophilia, infanticide, etc etc, practices which are, or should be abhorrent to humans.

Robbie you're going off on a tangent again.

You claimed homosexuality was 'unnatural'. The dictionary definition of unnatural is this -

'contrary to the laws or course of nature'.

As i have shown you, homosexuality is found throughout the natural world, therefore homosexuality cannot be termed 'unnatural'. You're going to have to find a new word for your prejudices.

Secondly, your list of animal practises, which humans rightly find abhorrent, are carried out by humans. Your own list equates human and animal behaviour.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Robbie you're going off on a tangent again.

You claimed homosexuality was 'unnatural'. The dictionary definition of unnatural is this -

'contrary to the laws or course of nature'.

As i have shown you, homosexuality is found throughout the natural world, therefore homosexuality cannot be termed 'unnatural'. You're going to have to find a new wo ...[text shortened]... abhorrent, are carried out by humans. Your own list equates human and animal behaviour.

dog gonnit, you're right noobster me ol son, its back to the old drawing board for this Wile E Cayote. but ill find a way noobster, i shall find a way! actually what i wanted to do is examine the biological argument, this is why I tried to propose the idea of the genetic code being the 'natural', way, according to the evolutionary hypothesis for it to transfer itself from one generation to the next all other things being being an anomaly or contrary to the norm, but that fox Andrew Hamilton anticipated my argument! the only thing that i may have recourse to is that, as far as I am aware, there has been no identification or mapping of the so called 'gay gene', and that the whole biological argument is a little cloudy, if not utterly fictitious.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Hi twhitehead,

Your points are quite valid - and, I believe, sincere rather than argumentative - so I will respond.

Surely you know that in science we simply cannot accept interpretations that are solely dependent on the interpretation of the individual?Surely, for any given set of facts for which there are two alternative explanations, we should not just throw up our hands in defeat but should rather look for more evidence that will point to one or the other explanation?

This is really a "debate about debating". Would you agree that a Buddhist and a Hindu have completely different world views? (As have scherzo and I, as I have discovered.) Would you further agree that only one of the two can be correct, if the views are entirely mutually exclusive? And would you further agree that to either party his particular point of view is based on the available evidence?

Finally, would you agree that trying to get to the "one true correct explanation" in all these RHP debates has NOT yielded that satisfactory result?!

Your response to my third point is actually the same as this. It is NOT that simple to get to the TRUTH when there are assumptions involved.

Just as an example, the basis of evolution (and geology) is an assumption which cannot be proven. That is the concept of continuity (I actually think there is a technical name for it which escapes me at the moment.) This means that the processes which we see today are exactly the same that there have ever been. However, Creationists (and believers in the Flood) believe in a cataclysmic intervention when a lot of things were discontinuous, to say the least. Both of these are assumptions which cannot be proven. However, the way you interpret the present depends entirely on which one you choose.

actually presented some evidence pointing towards a six day creation (which I am sure they did not).

In fact thay did. Get the book!

About 5 years ago when I just joined RHP I was on a mission to change the world! I joined a lot of threads about evolution, abortion, etc etc. However, things change. I no longer feel the need to convince anybody that they are wrong! If you are happy with your world view, good for you! And I say this seriously, not at all sarcastically!! And the simple reason is that I have changed MY world view quite a few times during my life, so who am I to say that I am 100% right NOW?? In fact, I know that I am not, and am still constantly learning and changing.

In peace,

CJ

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===========================
What is so absurd about a process consisting of a succession of perfectly credible and none-miraculous small changes over a large time span? Which particular one of those small changes do you find absurd? -if you don’t find any particular one of those small steps absurd then why would you find the whole series of those sma n is still a design. And I predict that you are about to change the subject a little.

…Firstly, these successive intermediary forms, in the case of the eye, are mostly in your imagination, I think.
….[/b]

Wrong! -they are ALL represented in animals that live TODAY.

…if scratch to eyeball is a possibility what is so unusual about anus to vigina as a possibility?

...

One has credible intermediate forms and the other doesn’t -I challenge you to describe to me the credible intermediate forms for the latter!

…I think that you have to "imagine" intermediary forms in any case.
….

Wrong! -ALL the intermediate forms for the evolution of the eye are represented in animals that live TODAY.

…For example, there is not way to arrange all known species and types of ape to reconstruct an relationship of descent to a human. You have to use your imagination.
…..

But there isn’t much difference in form between an ape-form and a human-form -this doesn’t require much of an imagination!

…I think it would likely be impossible to have all the recorded successive steps in any regard. So the imagination is used.
...

And it wouldn’t be necessary to have all the recorded successive steps to deduce from the evidence (prove in fact) that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor. So what if we have an incomplete picture -the picture still tells us that we must have had a common ancestor.

…Looking into the future it would be very hard to imagine.
...

Not if you can imagine. I can imagine -it isn’t hard.

…Okay. But are you saying that if you had been there 100 million years ago you could predict that a fish crawling up on land would be a an ancestor by way of descent to a bald eagle flying in the air ?
...

Not specifically a ‘bald eagle’ because that is a particular species and you cannot predict what particular species would evolve but you CAN predict what kind of thing would probably evolve and, yes, I would have predicted that a fish would eventually evolve into a land creature and then some of those land creatures would have evolved to be able to fly -because I don’t see what would stop that from happening and I can imagine perfectly credible intermediate forms.

….Would you have been able to imagine the intermediary steps that evolution would have to accomodate for to make that transition ?
. ..

Yes. -I just did.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…Firstly, these successive intermediary forms, in the case of the eye, are mostly in your imagination, I think.
….

Wrong! -they are ALL represented in animals that live TODAY.

…if scratch to eyeball is a possibility what is so unusual about anus to vigina as a possibility?

...

One has credible intermediate forms and the othe ...[text shortened]... olution would have to accomodate for to make that transition ?
. ..[/b]

Yes. -I just did.[/b]

==========================
Wrong! -they are ALL represented in animals that live TODAY.
==========================

Then there are no "missing links" then?

======================================
Wrong! -ALL the intermediate forms for the evolution of the eye are represented in animals that live TODAY.
=================================

You mean that you can list in ascending order all the stages of the eyeball from a light sensative scatch on some animal to the eyeball?

I doubt that you could do that even jumping from species to species let alone in one continuous development within a species.

=======================
…For example, there is not way to arrange all known species and types of ape to reconstruct an relationship of descent to a human. You have to use your imagination.
…..

But there isn’t much difference in form between an ape-form and a human-form -this doesn’t require much of an imagination!
===================================

Do you mean that you can list in ascending order all the developmental stages from some ape to man ? If so why do they speak of missing links?

And you do not think there are tremendous differences between a human brain and an ape brain ?

=====================
…I think it would likely be impossible to have all the recorded successive steps in any regard. So the imagination is used.
...

And it wouldn’t be necessary to have all the recorded successive steps to deduce from the evidence (prove in fact) that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor. So what if we have an incomplete picture -the picture still tells us that we must have had a common ancestor.
================================

Are you saying that it has been done but it is unnecessary to do it anyway? Or are you saying that it has not been done and it is not necessary.

If the latter is the case then I think this is a classic "sour grapes" attitude. You cannot do it so you say "Well, it is not necessary anyway."

What I really hear you saying in all this is that there is no "theory" of Evolution. I hear you saying there is only the known history of Evolution.


======================
…Looking into the future it would be very hard to imagine.
...

Not if you can imagine. I can imagine -it isn’t hard.
==========================

If I couldn't imagine then I would not have suggested the possibility given millions of years of said homo behavior, evolution could make the digestive outlet of the male anus a vigina. That is according to the fantastic things I am told the process can perform.

For instance, the process caused a land specias of deer to gradually migrate into the water to become a whale.

For instance, the process caused a leafy plant to develop the skill to catch insects and become a carnivorious plant.

For instance, the process united millions of tiny creatures to aggregate together to become a jellyfish type of organism.

For instance, the process a grunting ape to develop human language and writing.

Are you claiming that there are no missing links in these chains of development?

I think there are.

============================
Not specifically a ‘bald eagle’ because that is a particular species and you cannot predict what particular species would evolve but you CAN predict what kind of thing would probably evolve and, yes, I would have predicted that a fish would eventually evolve into a land creature and then some of those land creatures would have evolved to be able to fly -because I don’t see what would stop that from happening and I can imagine perfectly credible intermediate forms.
==========================

But you think the anus to vagina transition is more of an astounding a development ?

I don't see it as too much more to believe than many other alledged transitions I hear Evolution performed.

Somehow fish fins ended up bord wings through a long long process. So why not the digestive outlet of the male anus to a male reproductive inlet ?

I am told that this sloppy unintelligent and unpurposeful process can do wonders.

jaywill,

You don't seem to have taken on board one important aspect of evolution, which is heritability.

Organisms with rudimentary eyes can beget offspring with slightly better eyes. How can this work in the male homosexual case?

As I pointed out a couple of pages ago, you really haven't thought this through have you?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==========================
Wrong! -they are ALL represented in animals that live TODAY.
==========================

Then there are no "missing links" then?

======================================
Wrong! -ALL the intermediate forms for the evolution of the eye are represented in animals that live TODAY.
==========================

I am told that this sloppy unintelligent and unpurposeful process can do wonders.

…==========================
Wrong! -they are ALL represented in animals that live TODAY.
==========================

Then there are no "missing links" then?

….[/b]

That’s not what I said and you know it. I said “they are ALL represented in animals that live TODAY” i.e. the form/structure of the eye at each stage of the evolution of the eye can still be seen represented in species of animal that live today thus each one of these possible form/structure of the eye is NOT just in my imagination as you implied.

…You mean that you can list in ascending order all the stages of the eyeball from a light sensitive scatch on some animal to the eyeball?
...

I assume the above is a misprint and “scatch” should be “patch”?
The answer is yes. Just look at the top diagram at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Note it take very little imagination to imagine this series of credible steps and each one on these steps are represented in animals that live today.

…But there isn’t much difference in form between an ape-form and a human-form -this doesn’t require much of an imagination!
===================================

Do you mean that you can list in ascending order all the developmental stages from some ape to man ?
….

No -I mean just what I said. the exact evolutionary route is not yet known but it takes no imagination to imagine perfectly credible intermediate stages and there is no reason to believe there is anything fantastical about such intermediate stages.

…And it wouldn’t be necessary to have all the recorded successive steps to deduce from the evidence (prove in fact) that modern apes and humans share a common ancestor. So what if we have an incomplete picture -the picture still tells us that we must have had a common ancestor.
================================

Are you saying that it has been done but it is unnecessary to do it anyway?
…..

I am not sure if I understand your question.
IF what you mean by “Are you saying that it has been done” is “Are you saying that it has already been proven that we and apes have a common ancestor” then the answer is yes -that HAS been proven.
I am not sure what you mean by “but it is unnecessary to do it anyway?” because of course it is “necessary” to prove a hypotheses by proving that hypotheses! 😛 -I mean, that is just a teratology -right?
Obviously I have never said nor implied that it is “unnecessary” to prove a hypotheses by proving it! 😛

If this is not what you meant then please clarify.

…If I couldn't imagine then I would not have suggested the possibility given millions of years of said homo behavior, evolution could make the digestive outlet of the male anus a vigina.
...

I keep asking you again and again to describe the CREDIBLE intermediate forms and you refuse -why? -because you have NOT imagined them! -I challenge you (yet again) to prove me wrong! -describe to me all these CREDIBLE intermediate forms!
-I take your refusal to answer as evidence that you haven’t thought about this at all.

…But you think the anus to vagina transition is more of an astounding a development ?
...

Of course -what CREDIBLE intermediate forms could there be?
And there isn’t anything ‘astounding’ about the evolution of the eye BECAUSE there are proven CREDIBLE intermediate forms for the evolution of the eye -that’s the difference!

Originally posted by Lord Shark
jaywill,

You don't seem to have taken on board one important aspect of evolution, which is heritability.

Organisms with rudimentary eyes can beget offspring with slightly better eyes. How can this work in the male homosexual case?

As I pointed out a couple of pages ago, you really haven't thought this through have you?

I am still thinking it through.

Would you not agree that this Evolution process is alledged to have accomplished some totally fantastic things ?

Look around you outside. See the trees, bushes, flowers, insects, animals, human beings.

We are told that all of these developed from a unguided, unpurposeful, series of .... I don't know what to say, skillions of fortunate accidents.

You have to think that that is absolutely fantastic. It is for all intents and purposes a miracle, if it is true.

The only possible alternative I see to being astounded at this "sloppy" process and what it can do is a psuedo Buddhist view that the result only has some illusionary appearance of design.

So the casual Evolutionists adopts a pseudo Buddhist view - "O, it only appears to be designed. That is just illusionary. I mean what does design look like anyway ? ".

When I hear people take this casual attitude I suspect that they have made a adjustment in thier metaphysical world view to a pseudo Buddhist philosophy. The sloppy process has only made some illusionary appearance of having organized matter so astoundingly.

"Biology is the study if complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." - Richard Dawkins

Originally posted by jaywill
I am still thinking it through.

Would you not agree that this Evolution process is alledged to have accomplished some totally fantastic things ?

Look around you outside. See the trees, bushes, flowers, insects, animals, human beings.

We are told that all of these developed from a unguided, unpurposeful, series of .... I don't know what to say, s ings that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." - Richard Dawkins

…We are told that all of these developed from a unguided, unpurposeful, series of .... I don't know what to say, skillions of fortunate accidents.
….

I assume you are implying here that it is just all an astonishing coincidence to have so many “fortunate accidents” (beneficial mutation) by conveniently ignoring natural selection -the vast majority of those “accidents” are harmful mutations which are weeded out by natural selection and only a tiny proportion are beneficial but the existence of that tiny proportion of beneficial mutations is inevitable given the vast number of mutations (good and bad) and it isn’t an astonishing coincidence that natural selection selects for the beneficial mutations because it is almost inevitable that natural selection would select the most beneficial. -so no astonishing coincidence!

…"Biology is the study if complicated things that give the APPEARECE of having been designed for a purpose." - Richard Dawkins
….(my emphasis)

“APPEARECE” is the operative word here.
The illusion of purpose is shattered by the existence of the blunders of evolution such as putting the blood vessels in front of the retina etc.