20 Apr 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou can have an historical record of the sun coming up, than that is
But you are claiming that the past is more limiting than other forms of observation. That is false. The evidence that the sun rose yesterday is no less than the evidence that it is rising now.
I personally do not believe in "proof" when applied to the real world. But I do believe that evidence can be solid enough that you can stake you life on it or even ...[text shortened]... e world was flat would you accept that since the evidence that it is round is mere belief?
what you have, a historical record of the sun coming up. You can have
thousands of little things that may lead you to believe X, whatever X
is, and when you are connecting the dots to make your point, you can
get it wrong. Observation is done in the here and now, unless you want
to tell my you can at your will look into the year 1421 right now and
watch how events unfolded by observation them now, I'd say you are
limited yes.
Kelly
20 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJaySo radioactive dating could be wrong? How? I've asked again and again for you to explain the faulty reasoning and you've failed to do so every time.
You can have an historical record of the sun coming up, than that is
what you have, a historical record of the sun coming up. You can have
thousands of little things that may lead you to believe X, whatever X
is, and when you are connecting the dots to make your point, you can
get it wrong. Observation is done in the here and now, unless you want
to te ...[text shortened]... ow and
watch how events unfolded by observation them now, I'd say you are
limited yes.
Kelly
Let's try this again. If you wish to claim that radioactive dating may be incorrect you must provide a scientific reason why this is the case.
20 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJayAll observation includes a time factor. If you look at the sun, you are seeing it as it was 4 minutes ago. But time is not the only possible reason for an observation being inaccurate. What about distance? The further away something is the harder it is to make out details. But get yourself a telephoto lens and do you distrust what you see because it is far away?
Observation is done in the here and now, unless you want
to tell my you can at your will look into the year 1421 right now and
watch how events unfolded by observation them now, I'd say you are
limited yes.
Kelly
Do you believe that all information about Pluto is inherently inaccurate because it is far away and because all measurements are inherently dated due to the time it takes light to travel from it?
All observation has limitations. I know a few card tricks and could quite easily fool your eyes just 1m away.
What you are doing is claiming that all observation of past events is inherently more inaccurate than other forms of observation even when the actual evidence is significantly greater. For example if I did a DNA test on a man and his child and concluded that the child was the mans son, you would dispute the evidence based solely on the fact that I was not present at the child's conception (past event) even though my interpretation of the facts (DNA Evidence) seems to imply a father child relationship.
20 Apr 07
Question: Don't evolutionist believe that everything that is (earth, moon, stars, etc.) started from "THE BIG BANG" theory, and the distance the earth is from the sun. the perfect tilt of the earth so we have 4 seasons. Plants, animals, humans, .......so forth and so on? My second Q. is if you take paper plastic ink and wire put it all in a pile and blow it up how many trys will it take to make a printer? The bible clearly states that God created man in his image, it does not say that we humans originated from a single cell amieba that evolved over time. One more mind boggling thought which is harder to believe that this huge rock mass that was before "THE BIG BANG" was there "FOREVER" floating in space? or God was there forever? Last and not least what created this huge rock mass that eventually blew up did it not have a beginning was it always there? please does anyone have answers?
20 Apr 07
Originally posted by domlo45Very confused.
Question: Don't evolutionist believe that everything that is (earth, moon, stars, etc.) started from "THE BIG BANG" theory, and the distance the earth is from the sun. the perfect tilt of the earth so we have 4 seasons. Plants, animals, humans, .......so forth and so on? My second Q. is if you take paper plastic ink and wire put it all in a pile and ...[text shortened]... up did it not have a beginning was it always there? please does anyone have answers?
Where did you learn about this stuff?
The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Evolution is about life, the big bang is about the universe. Not sure what you're trying to say about the seasons and the tilt of the Earth - you might need to rephrase that one.
You would never get a printer in the way you suggest, but life doesn't work in the same way a printer does, so the analogy is severely flawed.
20 Apr 07
Originally posted by domlo45No. No-one believes that the universe was created by a theory. Evolutionists believe that evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life on earth. It makes no claims whatsoever about the formation of the earth, or the inception of life.
Question: Don't evolutionist believe that everything that is (earth, moon, stars, etc.) started from "THE BIG BANG" theory, and the distance the earth is from the sun. the perfect tilt of the earth so we have 4 seasons. Plants, animals, humans, .......so forth and so on? My second Q. is if you take paper plastic ink and wire put it all in a pile and ...[text shortened]... up did it not have a beginning was it always there? please does anyone have answers?
However, most rational people who believe in evolution also tend to believe those other things too. Of course, still none of them believe that the universe was created by a theory, but rather by an event, known as the big bang.
As for you bit about the earth's tilt, so what? Ever heard of the "anthropic principle"? Your argument is akin to telling the punchline at the start of the joke. Humans evolved the way we did because of the environment we found ourselves in. If the environment had been a different way, we'd probably have evolved differently.
As for your "plastics, paper, ink=/= printer" analogy, it is fallacious, this is not the way that evolution works. In fact, your analogy is closer to your creation myth of genesis, only serving to show how stupid THAT idea is. Evolution is about gradual change, starting off very, very simply, and becoming more complex over time. This is exactly what we see when we look at the development of, say, motor cars or computers. The subtle difference between the analogy of cars or computers is that humans design both computers and cars, whilst random changes, selected in a non random manner drives evolution.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd, although it seems amazing that life evolved here at all, it's hardly
As for you bit about the earth's tilt, so what? Ever heard of the "anthropic principle"? Your argument is akin to telling the punchline at the start of the joke. Humans evolved the way we did because of the environment we found ourselves in. If the environment had been a different way, we'd probably have evolved differently.
surprising. Sure, the earth's distance from the sun permits life, and
its tilt and other things. So what? There are literally billions of planets
out there. Given a random scattering of rocky things around shiny things,
some are bound to be better than others for supporting life.
There's this formula (that I don't remember fully) that takes into account
a whole bunch of factors -- types of suns, a planet's distance from its
parent sun, the presence of water, and all sorts of other things -- and
even if you say that the chance for all of them is like one in a million,
it works out that there are millions of planets that are likely to have life
on them.
And scottishinnz is right: if we had had less sunlight, our eyes would
be bigger, or if we had more gravity we'd be closer to the ground or
quadrapedal, or if there had been less oxygen in the atmosphere we
would have four lungs or whatever. The earth isn't a perfect host for
life, just a good one. Some scientist like scottishinnz could give a bunch
of changes to the earth that would make it more hospitable that it
currently is, and if it were less hospitable, life would still be possible. And,
as I said, given the billions of planets out there, I'm sure there are some
with life on it, some with simpler life because of the less ideal circumstances,
some with more complicated life because of better circumstances.
This 'earth is perfect for life' idea is just the incipient narcissism that many
people have -- God made this whole universe just for us -- which is
completely nonsensical.
Nemesio
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by jammerHi -
[b]Thanks amannion for taking the time to try to explain it to me.
I'll admit (as if you couldn't tell) i'm thick when it comes to science.
I'm still having trouble understanding how a tadpole can become a man though. This concept of "speciation - one species gradually becoming something else" is hard to grasp.
I was informed of this thread, and so I decided to check it out. Some of the information is the same, due to the similarity of the questions. And, as I stated on the other thread, I do not have a lot of time (can't read 3000 posts), nor do I have much time for emailing; nor am I a scientist, although I've had some science training; nor am I interested in name calling, insults, flaming, etc. To such posts I will not respond. However, I would like to actually answer a question, if I am able to do so.
The question that you have asked about one life form changing into another, is exactly *the* problem that evolution can not answer. The reason for that is DNA. Traits are inherited from one's parents, and are controlled by genes (DNA). Some traits are controlled by many genes (polygenic), and other traits are controlled a single gene, (autosomal), which can either be dominant (stronger), or recessive (weaker). It's the big A, little a, from high school biology. Gregor Mendel figured this out with his famous pea plant experiments in the 1800's.
However, there is currently some disagreement regarding strictly Mendelian inheritance, as some studies have indicated the possibility that groups of genes can be transferred, called polymorphic segmental duplication. This would throw an interesting twist into genetic predictability, but certainly gives a possible answer to how polygenic traits can be passed from generation to generation, in certain families, or lines of animals. It would also explain prepotency.
Those who believe in evolution state that mutations (change in a gene, nearly always negative) are the vehicle for the changing of one life form into another. But the problem with that is, a mutation is only a change in an existing gene, not an entirely new gene. New genes are needed for totally new traits, like wings to grow on a previously wingless species (the myth that birds evolved from dinosaurs). For something like that to happen, it takes an intelligent mind to insert new genes, such as in genetically modified food, like BT corn; or cold resistant tomatoes that have had flounder genes spliced in; or glow in the dark mice that have had genes from fireflies, or jellyfish, spliced in. These new genes had to be inserted by mechanical means by someone with the imagination and creativity and ability to do so. It can not just happen by chance, random processes and time, as is stated in the myth of evolution.
Regarding evolution (not natural selection, which happens all the time), since DNA is the intracellular language that controls the heritable traits in living beings, whether plant or animal, the statistical unlikelihood of the possibility of quantities of positive mutations all getting together simultaneously to produce a viable change in a necessary life function, like a lung change for example, precludes the logical acceptance of the possibility of evolution.
This explains the desperate search for extraterrestrial life forms...
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by The CougarYawn. More creationist drivel.
Hi -
I was informed of this thread, and so I decided to check it out. Some of the information is the same, due to the similarity of the questions. And, as I stated on the other thread, I do not have a lot of time (can't read 3000 posts), nor do I have much time for emailing; nor am I a scientist, although I've had some science training; nor am I in ...[text shortened]... ity of evolution.
This explains the desperate search for extraterrestrial life forms...
Non-functional genes can certainly give rise to functional ones. Also, most evolution comes from parts which already work. For example, the proteins responsible for the bacterial flagellum all have other functions within the bacteria, separate from making flagella.
Also, genes being transmitted as non-discrete units is well known and understood. Dawkins has a nice section in his 1974 book, The Selfish Gene, on it. So, you are only 35 years late.
This is a good lecture by Ken Miller from Brown University on Intelligent Design and Evolution. It's about 2 hours long, but who said learning was quick?
29 Apr 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzRegarding segmental duplication, yes, it has been observed, studied, and documented, but whether or not it is well understood, is a good question. And while segmental duplication has been researched since at least 1966, note that I was contrasting "current" in reference to Mendel's discoveries in the 1800's. An excellent article, although written in 2005, so somewhat dated, is:
Yawn. More creationist drivel.
Non-functional genes can certainly give rise to functional ones. Also, most evolution comes from parts which already work. For example, the proteins responsible for the bacterial flagellum all have other functions within the bacteria, separate from making flagella.
Also, genes being transmitted as non-discrete u ...[text shortened]... bout 2 hours long, but who said learning was quick?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030196
However, segmental duplication still can not account for evolution, on a purely statistical basis.
scottishinnz wrote:
> This is a good lecture by Ken Miller from Brown University on Intelligent Design and Evolution. It's about 2 hours long, but who said learning was quick?
<
An excellent refutation of Miller is found here:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/do_car_engines_run_on_lugnuts.html
with some other information here:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-collapse-of-ken-miller/
What is most interesting is, to quote Casey Luskin on the evolutionnews.org site, "Miller has inaccurately characterized how one tests for irreducible complexity, thus refuting only a straw-version of Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity."
scottishinnz wrote:
> Non-functional genes can certainly give rise to functional ones. Also, most evolution comes from parts which already work. <
And herein lies another problem for evolution, where, then, would the "parts which already work", come from in an organism which did not have the part to begin with? Not every feature that exists has a prototype in every organism. Logically, then, some features *must* have had a beginning, and there must be code language for these parts. The statistical probability of this code language magically appearing out of thin air, so to speak, is zero.
scottishinnz wrote:
> For example, the proteins responsible for the bacterial flagellum all have other functions within the bacteria, separate from making flagella. <
Whether or not particular proteins have other functions is not the point. The point is that the statistical probability of getting precisely the right genes together, in the correct order, at the exact same moment in history, to create a fully functional feature that would impart a survival advantage to the organism, again, is zero.
29 Apr 07
Originally posted by The CougarRubbish. All you are showing here is how saltation (like Adam and Eve) is crap.
Regarding segmental duplication, yes, it has been observed, studied, and documented, but whether or not it is well understood, is a good question. And while segmental duplication has been researched since at least 1966, note that I was contrasting "current" in reference to Mendel's discoveries in the 1800's. An excellent article, although written in 200 ...[text shortened]... ctional feature that would impart a survival advantage to the organism, again, is zero.
10 May 07
(Our evolution debate continued on the thread 'For Beatlemania', so I am posting this here, as well.) Long time, no chat. Too much to do, and not enough time for email debates, especially when there is no need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. I regret to say that, as I posted in my first email, I just do not have enough free time on my hands, while the rest of you may, to rehash what has already been written about, at length. Regarding speciation, "kinds", etc., I will refer you to several online articles:
http://www.icr.org/article/342/
http://www.icr.org/article/567/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Definitions
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp
These are excellent, and both sites contain much information for those who are truly inquiring, and not merely looking to belittle and insult. I have already stated what is, I believe, the main scientific problem with the idea of evolution, which is that the statistical probability of getting precisely the right genes together, in the correct order, at the exact same moment in history, to create a fully functional new feature that would impart a survival advantage to the organism, is zero.
Of course, each person will choose what to believe in, and that choice will determine how he/she will interpret the evidence, whether genetic, fossil, or philosophical. I will pray for you all, that you will, indeed, be open enough to allow yourself to read these sites with an unclosed mind.
CS Lewis, himself, was an atheist, as was Dr. Jobe Martin. If these kinds of people can realize the truth, you can, too! The truth is, God loves you, and sent His son, Christ, to die for you (see 'The Passion'😉, so that you can be with God when you die. As the Bible states, Christ rose again (several hundred witnesses for this, more than for many events that we take for historical fact), and then went back up to Heaven, from whence He shall return, at God's ordained time. If you believe this, the Holy Spirit will live in you, and you will have His help on this earth, too.
People ask, what about those who have never heard of Christ? There is reference that people will be judged according to what they know, in Romans 2. This is one site that addresses this issue:
http://achristian.wordpress.com/2006/05/01/what-happens-to-people-who-dont-hear-about-jesus/
This post will probably generate many remarks, and so be it, but as I said above, I do not have the available free time to direct people to answers which are abundantly available via a simple Google search. I pray that each of you will do so.