Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

(Excerpt) Read more at talkorigins.org ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; evolution; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 1,001-1,048 next last
To: bigdakine

Paragraphs are our friends.


751 posted on 12/20/2004 1:24:49 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"Prove IT!"

I=2/T

IT=2
:-)


752 posted on 12/20/2004 1:28:41 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"especially when this crazed biological theory is applied to social issues."

Science never would apply the ToE to social issues. That was done by the Nazis and eugenicists. They were misguided.

There are a lot of misguided people in this world.


753 posted on 12/20/2004 1:33:39 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

Newton and numerous other brilliant scientists prior to 1800 had no opportunity to formulate the Theory of Evolution because science and our knowledge of the world had not advanced to that point.


What are you saying? That prior to Darwin there weren't any fossils? There weren't layers of dirt holding different kinds of rocks?

B: You'll forgive me if I keep comming back to this point as Reuben isn't too swift, and I continually have to repeat myself. Nobody is claiming that the evidence for evolution didn't exist in Newton's time. However, nobody knew about it. Geology as a science, didn't get underway until Nicolas Steno formulated the superposition principle in the late 1600's. Newton didn't study geology. Therefore it is comical to use Newton as an example of a luminary who didn't accept the theory of evolution. I think most people with half a brain will understand this.


What kind of unique scientific technology did Darwin haul out with him to the Galápagos Islands that was crucial in the formation of his so-called "theory"?

B: Darwin was trained in Geology by Lyelle, Sedgewick and in Biology by Robert Grant at Cambridge.

Newton had no training in either.



So new and cutting edge that man had to wait until the 19th century before he could possibly have a grasp on his origins?

B: Same reason we had to wait until the middle of the 20th century for man to have a grasp of computers. After all, are you trying to tell me that silicon didn't exist before the 1960's?

B: I hope people reading this thread relize just how damaged the thought processes of creationists really are. Its not pretty.


Come on, you're really a troll aren't you... (you can admit it)

Reuben, I'm sure the precious few thoughtful creationists out there are hoping you are indeed a troll.


754 posted on 12/20/2004 1:42:00 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Why are all the physical constants of the universe finely tuned for the existence of carbon based lif

I would add to the prof's answer that only a vanishingly tiny portion of our universe appears to be "fine-tuned" for life. The rest of it is utterly inimical to life. Couldn't an omnipotent being have been just a bit less wasteful if the purpose of the whole shebang was to get us?

755 posted on 12/20/2004 1:45:17 PM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 748 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

And another slur of yours that I wanted to clear up.
Newton among other things, was also an alchemist.

B: It wasn't a slur. Newton was indeed an alchemist. And second this wasn't intended to be a putdown of Newton. It does show that even Newton had some ideas that did not bear any fruit.

Alchemy has a rich history starting in ancient Egypt and later simultaneously flourishing in China and the Greek world. There were two directions that alchemy went in the 4th Century BC, one went the way of empirical sciences, and the other went the way of magic, astrology and fraud (of the latter path none of these things are part of monotheistic religion).

B: Alchemy went nowhere. Its only value was that as people tried in vain to turn ordinary things into gold, they discovered alot of things about different substances. And later on the early chemists tried to systematize that knowledge, culminating in Mendeleyev's periodic table.


I guess while you are trying to insult Newton, you might as well insult the Catholic scientist Antoine Lavoisier and Albertus Magnus who was sainted by the Catholic Church for his mastery in chemistry.

B: Lavoisier is considered to be on of the first "chemists". I really have no idea what you're on about. I think you're so muddle headed that neither do you.

( SNIP )


756 posted on 12/20/2004 1:48:55 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

WHAT meaning what CAUSE and EFFECT, or in the case of creationism, WHO.

My point is that no one has all the answers. Science is an investigation and attempted explanation of the universe.

B: Science is a self-correcting methodology which interrogates nature to understand how it works. That no one has all the answers is irrelevant. Science is the only means with a proven track record at obtaining answers about nature.



The Bible is very limited, but mainly faith-based conceptualism of GOD and his creation of that universe.

Why there is the assumption that scientists are all atheists, I don't know.

B: Beats me. I suppose it makes the creationist feel better.


Every form of life has a 'purpose'. This alone should give rise to something more than the atheistic concept that chaos randomly (....chaos/random) turned into order.

Thank you for taking the time to answer the posed questions. You may find them silly, but the answers given by each person tell me a lot about their education, history, and state of mind.

Accept this as a compliment. I usually find that those that take the time to answer, even if they find out their answer rebuked, are more intelligent, and better educated than those whom find it easier to call others ignorant and wrong without a bit of proof to back it up.

I learn much more from discussing subjects with people like yourself, and consider those kind of people to be the real stronghold of Free Republic.

I don't think there should be a rift between evolution and creationism. There is no doubt that species evolve.

B: There needn't be a rift between science and creation. But creationism, IMHO, is not only not science, its bad religion too.


Survival of the fittest is a widely demonstrable concept.

Were we to be creatures governed by instinct, living only by the law of the jungle, then I would say that atheists are correct. But we are not. We have a conscious. We have the ability to reason above and beyond our physical needs.

That alone should make one give credence to a higher power.

B: Or not :-). But we do have instincts, and we also have civilization. Human beings learned cooperation, as those that did cooperate for purposes of protection, food gathering were more successful than those who kept to themselves.


But, everyone believes what they want to, in the end.

BELIEF, and TRUTH. Two poles that do not necessarily coincide.

B: For sure.


757 posted on 12/20/2004 1:56:09 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

B: I took it for granted he meant Corona, but I could be wrong.
It's ok. You can call me a dumbass.

B: We all make mistakes. I can think of plenty of reasons to call someone a dumbass, making a typo or a simple mistake is not of them. Of all the questions you asked, this issure of Coronal heating is perhaps the most vexing, although its been sometime since I looked into it.


758 posted on 12/20/2004 1:58:04 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Science never would apply the ToE to social issues.

Be careful here. Science at any moment is embodied in the practicing scientists of the time, just as religion is embodied in its preachers.

You are correct in saying "science" is morally neutral, but incorrect if you are implying that all scientific organizations are innocent.

The early proponents of evolution did get heavily into "Social Darwinism".

759 posted on 12/20/2004 2:05:09 PM PST by js1138 (D*mn, I Missed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Paragraphs are our friends.


B: LOL! I agree. I think what happened is that somewhere in the post I had an angle bracket or two, and the website interpreted it as an HTML command. I will try to avoid that in the future..


760 posted on 12/20/2004 2:07:31 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Not to butt into the specific arguments you have with Reuben as I am not a flood geologist, nor young earth believer, but you might learn how to use the HTML on this forum before you call someone else an idiot.


B: LOL. I wasn't trying to use HTML. But on other forums I've used angle brackets to highlite certain things. Here they get interpreted as HTML, not in most other forums.


761 posted on 12/20/2004 2:15:58 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 735 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

Every human being filters through his bias.

B: Except that science over time removes bias because theories have to make predictions regarding nature which are either confimed or denied.

The problem with evolutionists and a related species...(possibly from alleles) liberal journalists.

B: Ever notice how the religious nutters blame everybody for their problems except themselves.

They alone in all humanity figure they are pristine, holy, pure, sole possessors of objective truth. All other ideas must be measured from THEIR objective standards.


B: In science, nature is the objective standard. If you ahve a problem with that, find another universe.


Yet they somehow fail to recognize that scientists hold to their theories even in error, until overwhelmed with contrary evidence.

B: Sometimes thats true. But here you offer good evidence for science in action. Eventually theories not borne out by the data are discarded. Religious beliefs usually require wars for that to happen, if ever.



Do you know what was the prevailing theory before plate tectonics?

B: Uniformitarianism. Although PT is in itself consistent with uniformitarianism.


Do you know what scientists did to the first that were pointing to continental drift?

B: Wegner made a lot of mistakes. His claim that the continents moved due to the Eotvos effect is as patently absurd today as it was 80 years a go. Wegner also made a lot of key observations. Wegenr also had prominent allies, like Sir Arthur Holmes and James Dutoit. Holmes was the greatest geologist of the 20th century. But indeed, continental drift was hotly debated. I should point out that Plate Tectonics draws from Holme's ideas, such as subduction and mantle convection, not Wegner's.


That germ theory was welcomed with open arms. Not to mention quantum theory.

B: The British termed it " German Physics". Of course then they realized it gave the right answres in experiments.


Or dozens of scientific theories that were debunked, sometimes men destroyed, emotionally, financially, for going contrary to you pristine, holy defenders of truth.

B: Science isn't for that faint of heart or cowards. Perhaps its not for everyone.

How about Einstein? (not sure but probably smarter than you by about 40 I.Q points). Who fudged his relativity equations to get rid of the pesky evidence that the universe was expanding.

B: When Einstein formulated General Relativity, there was no evidence that the universe was anything but static. But his equations predicted the Universe could not be static. Hence he added in the cosmologocial constant. When Hubble later found that the universe was indeed not static, Einstein called his cosmological constant the greatest blunder of his life. As it turns out, the cosmological constatn has made a come back, but for different reasons.


Cause all the "best scientists" knew that the universe was in a steady state. But he sees the redshift through Hubble's telescope himself, and unlike dishonest evolutionists, Einstein had the integrity to admit, "this was my greatest mistake" to wit, not believing what his equations told him right to his face.

B: Thats right. Except that evolutionists have made any blunders of that magnitude.


I have enough confidence in God, truth, and objective science that they are in harmony. It will be Christian scientists, and at least non evolutionary scientists that will, and are debunking the evolutionary dead end.

B: The first geologists and evolutionists were all Christian scientists.

B: perhaps you should write a book; "Idiots guide to the history of science"


762 posted on 12/20/2004 2:32:10 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Not the scientists. Just the kooks. If you want to talk biological science and why it substantiates evolution, let me know.

Let's try to stick to the subject.


763 posted on 12/20/2004 3:01:42 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
My vehemence in rejecting this is because of the almost stupefying acceptance you and other evolutionist have that blind chance could evolve such interlocking systems which are far more complex than any computer chip yet designed and manufactured by man. I know since I have designed a few myself.

You have to believe there is magical pixie dust within nature itself, or even worse, that the addition of complex interactions of biological materials, somehow gives them the ability to produce even more complexity.

And this all the way up to the human brain, the most complex thing we know about in the natural universe. Where does it ever end?

Someday this theory will produce an all knowing God that will punish evolutionists for never believing in Him in the first place. And you would have no problem with THAT god, cause your EVERYTHING that has ever happened MUST have happened via evolution theory is set like concrete in your minds.

Laughable that some of you protest my protestations that this theory is NOT falsifiable!

Thus in evolution the snake forever eats its tail. What bugs me is otherwise brilliant men swallow this whole without any critical assessment...like you, just willingly accepting a fairy tale story, because it was told by a biologist.

Why don't you find out EXACTLY the complexities of any symbiotic relationship and see if you can comfortably regurgitate this story again. And this from a theory that cannot even preserve the necessary millions of gradual transitory species in the rocks, but can produce Orchids and bees, mimicry and symbiosis, parasites and mitosis.
764 posted on 12/20/2004 3:20:21 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"On the contrary, it screams randomness. Why would a designer put a defective copy of a enzyme essential for the biosynthesis of vitamin C in the human genome? Why put defective retroviruses there? Why is our genome a junk heap of non-functional bits of genetic information? "

Tell me how it has no purpose if you are ever stalked by a Lion.


We know genes suffer mutation from cosmic radiation alone over time, (among other reasons) another argument against evolution, thanks for reminding me. Most mutations are deleterious to the organism, if not all. We just found the DNA "code" (who is the code maker?) in 1952, and you already know everything about it? Including what is junk or not? This is what happens when you sip at the cup of Darwin, pretty soon you are drunk on an arrogance and assumption that you know it all.

So what role does intracellular communication play in the end form of the organism? You must know. If the entire blueprint of the organism is within the DNA...what tells the DNA what genes are expressed at what time, in what sequence?

Why are all the physical constants of the universe finely tuned for the existence of carbon based life

"Because, in all the universes where they are not, you aren't around to ask that question."

Danger Will Robinson, Tautology alert, tautology alert!
765 posted on 12/20/2004 3:35:38 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 748 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Leave it to an evolutionist or a Pharisee to strain at gnats as he swallows whales. And Merry Christmas to you, although Christ was born in Oct.

(sigh) So much misinformation to correct in so many areas.


766 posted on 12/20/2004 3:38:28 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Leave it to an evolutionist or a Pharisee to strain at gnats as he swallows whales. And Merry Christmas to you, although Christ was born in Oct.

(sigh) So much misinformation to correct in so many areas.


767 posted on 12/20/2004 3:39:05 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Leave it to an evolutionist or a Pharisee to strain at gnats as he swallows whales. And Merry Christmas to you, although Christ was born in Oct.

(sigh) So much misinformation to correct in so many areas.


768 posted on 12/20/2004 3:39:26 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Sorry my last post was suddenly struck by the undefined force of punctuated equilibrium
769 posted on 12/20/2004 3:41:30 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
"In science NATURE is the objective standard."

Then how come evolutionists don't believe what "NATURE," tells them in the fossil record in no uncertain terms? Species appear in-toto! No transition, no slow gradual changes, zip, nadda. Get back to me on that one, O priest of science.
770 posted on 12/20/2004 3:47:56 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

It gets to the point where it just becomes a waste of time.


771 posted on 12/20/2004 5:12:54 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

My vehemence in rejecting this is because of the almost stupefying acceptance you and other evolutionist have that blind chance could evolve such interlocking systems which are far more complex than any computer chip yet designed and manufactured by man. I know since I have designed a few myself.

B: Well then, you're behind the times. I pity the company you work for. Because things like electrical circuits are now being designed by "Genetic Algorithms" which are mathematical algorithms which mimic Darwinian evolution. In fact Genetic Algorithms such as the Monte Carlo Method have been a staple of mathematicians and engineers for decades. I suggest you consider retirement, and let a younger generation of engineers who know what they are doing have a crack at it.


You have to believe there is magical pixie dust within nature itself, or even worse, that the addition of complex interactions of biological materials, somehow gives them the ability to produce even more complexity.

B: THat biological materials have complex properties and interactions is a fact of nature. Again, here we have a creationists that is at war with reality.


And this all the way up to the human brain, the most complex thing we know about in the natural universe. Where does it ever end?

B: Beats me.

Someday this theory will produce an all knowing God that will punish evolutionists for never believing in Him in the first place. And you would have no problem with THAT god, cause your EVERYTHING that has ever happened MUST have happened via evolution theory is set like concrete in your minds.

B: Ah yes, when all else fails, and the creationist runs out of arguments, he threatens the opposition with hell. That sums up creationism folks..


772 posted on 12/20/2004 6:41:25 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"In science NATURE is the objective standard."

Then how come evolutionists don't believe what "NATURE," tells them in the fossil record in no uncertain terms? Species appear in-toto! No transition, no slow gradual changes, zip, nadda. Get back to me on that one, O priest of science.

B: Because speciation is a process which occurs on time scales to short to be geenrally well represented in the fossil record. Speciation is an observed process; whether we see species to species transitions in the fossil record is irrelevant. But the fact is we do. They are not common; but so what?

Why not read what Gould had to say about it:


In Hen's teeth and Horse's Toes pgs 258-260 :

"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am for I have become a major target of these practices.

We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibria largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equlibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists, whether through design or stupidity, I do not know as admitting that the fossil record record includes no transitional forms. Transistional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups"



From Dinosaur in a Haystack, Gould has some to say about creatobabblers..

"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are rare, to be sure, and for two good sets of reasons geological (gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change... ) But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair minded sceptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.

Later on..

Still our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yeild and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found and continiuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.


773 posted on 12/20/2004 6:48:02 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
We know genes suffer mutation from cosmic radiation alone over time, (among other reasons) another argument against evolution, thanks for reminding me. Most mutations are deleterious to the organism, if not all. We just found the DNA "code" (who is the code maker?) in 1952, and you already know everything about it? Including what is junk or not? This is what happens when you sip at the cup of Darwin, pretty soon you are drunk on an arrogance and assumption that you know it all.

The vitamin C mutation is shared by the great apes. If you deny evolution, you are faced with the implausible coincidence that chimpanzees, gorillas and humans suffered exact the same mutation in exactly the same gene at exactly the same place.

I don't know everything, but I do know that if three similar species had exactly the same mutation in the same place in their genomes, odds are it was one mutation in a common ancestor of all three.

Danger Will Robinson, Tautology alert, tautology alert!

Not at all. if you ask me the probability that you exist, i say it's 1.0; because, after all, you do.

You should take up bridge. In bridge, even if only a miracle lie of the cards can let you win the hand, you play that lie, because after all, what's the point in losing by the most probable method? Likewise, all your probability calculations have to, in the end, consider the fact that you do in fact exist.

774 posted on 12/20/2004 7:19:59 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
Species appear in-toto! No transition, no slow gradual changes, zip, nadda.

In that book you love to cite it tells you not to tell fibs. The fossil record is full of transitional forms. You know that.

775 posted on 12/20/2004 7:21:37 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"On the contrary, it screams randomness. Why would a designer put a defective copy of a enzyme essential for the biosynthesis of vitamin C in the human genome? Why put defective retroviruses there? Why is our genome a junk heap of non-functional bits of genetic information? "

Tell me how it has no purpose if you are ever stalked by a Lion.


B: I don't see how a broken down gene which was essential for vitamin c production in our prosimian ancestors serves much purpose when you're being chased by a Lion. Then again, I'm not a creationist.



We know genes suffer mutation from cosmic radiation alone over time, (among other reasons) another argument against evolution, thanks for reminding me. Most mutations are deleterious to the organism, if not all.

B: Like much of the stuff you write, this is wrong. Most mutations are neutral with respect to fitness. And thanks to the redundancy of the genetic code, many mutations have no effect whatsoever.


e just found the DNA "code" (who is the code maker?) in 1952, and you already know everything about it?

B: An appeal to incredulity is not a scientific argument. We don't have to know everything about DNA in order to know some of it is junk. Two logical fallacies in one sentence. Not bad.



Including what is junk or not?

B: That junk DNA exists is not in dispute by anybody with half a brain. There is a species of newt with 10x the DNA humans have. Do you not think most of that is junk? Especially when closely related species to that newt have much less DNA? Buy a clue.


This is what happens when you sip at the cup of Darwin, pretty soon you are drunk on an arrogance and assumption that you know it all.

B: UM no. Your remarks are what happens when sombody uncritically sips the bilge stored in creationist garbage cans. You haven't written one thing thats correct. Not one thing.


So what role does intracellular communication play in the end form of the organism? You must know. If the entire blueprint of the organism is within the DNA...what tells the DNA what genes are expressed at what time, in what sequence?


B: Thats a good question. We know that there exists a whole suite of regulatory genes which regulate biochemical signals which in turn set off a cacade of activity. There are master control genes like PAX-6 which control the development of eyes. THis is all well and good stuff, but has no bearing on junk DNA. Your question is a non-sequiter and another attmept to argue by personal incredulity.

Why are all the physical constants of the universe finely tuned for the existence of carbon based life

B: Given ours is the only planet in the solar system known to contain life, I suggest that if you call that fine tuning, I hate to see what bad tuning is.


"Because, in all the universes where they are not, you aren't around to ask that question."

Danger Will Robinson, Tautology alert, tautology alert!

B: The crux of the matter is, is that any universe capable of supporting human life must have certain characteristics whether it is designed or not. Hence, we cannot use the fact that we exist in a universe capable of supporting us to suggest that in turn the universe is designed. Designed or not designed, those characteristics which allow carbon base life to exist must be present. Furthermore, there is no evidence that our Universe is the only one capable of supporting carbon based life, much less the best tunned universe possible for carbon based life. Ergo, your argument is circular --- The Universe is desinged because we exist. We exist because the universe is designed.---

Its the old "heads I win, tails you lose" style of argument creationists practice all to well.


776 posted on 12/20/2004 10:25:17 PM PST by bigdakine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
mimicry and symbiosis, parasites and mitosis.

I've already given you a perfectly reasonable explanation of symbiosis that you give no reason for rejecting other than that it upsets your religious pre-dispositions. No doubt next year you'll still be saying that no-one has ever explained symbiosis to you from the POV of ToE.

You continue to shout that no transitional forms exist in the fossil record despite having been shown references to numerous TFs. Amusingly you attack Arch'rix as a TF on the grounds that some biologists think it is a bird and others think it is a reptile. Difficulty in classification is exactly what one would expect with a TF; like the ape skulls that scientists think are TFs while creationists all give them different human/not-human classifications. (the creationist credo being that no ape skull can be difficult to classify, difficulty in classification is a defining characteristic of transition)

What is your problem with the other phenomena that you mention? Let us imagine the highly intelligent being from the planet "designia" who has never heard of or seen evolution, and tell him how it works by fixing tiny alterations that improve fitness in the gene pool while rejecting tiny alterations that are deletrious and allowing drift through tiny alterations that are neutral. I would expect that creature after some long thought to predict that mimicry and symbiosis, parasites and mitosis would occur.

Curiously the things you see as an argument for design I see as an argument against design. Why would a designer make a stick insect good at mimicry while its predators are good at discernment? The ToE explains this as an arms race between the species. A designer would just make the insect less good at mimicry and the predators less discerning. There's no need to make them good at it. Nature is over-designed from the POV of an aware designer.

But nature is rather poorly designed as well as overdesigned from the POV of an aware designer. Obvious improvements can be suggested for (eg) the human body but evolution has not found these because no evolutionary intermediates on the pathway to the improvement that aren't deletrious exist. This wouldn't be a difficulty for your designer though so why don't our bodies work in a more sensible way to achieve their effect with less complexity and innefficiency?

You have to believe there is magical pixie dust within nature itself

No, you are the one who wants to believe in supernatural intervention, not me. The whole point of ToE is that it says there isn't any pixy dust (as I think you know which begs the question why do you word your attack that way). As you have said most mutations or miscopyings aren't beneficial, but natural selection works to select for those which are beneficial (however rare they are) and to select against those which are deletrious (however common they are). You never talk about natural selection do you? The real way in which competing phenotypes select for the continuation of the genotype that caused them. You characterize the whole process as random without acknowledging that nature is a selection engine forever culling the less fit and promoting the reproductive prospects of the more fit.(fit being a value-free term in this instance)

Why don't you find out EXACTLY the complexities of any symbiotic relationship

It wasn't that complex all the way back. It got that way through many generations of gradually increasing co-operation as the increased symbiosis improved the reproductive chances of individuals in both species.

777 posted on 12/21/2004 12:52:26 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 764 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

What they mean when they say they have never seen a transitional is no one can "prove" to them that this is the node of the branch.

They, as usual, refuse to infer that there was a more transitional form slightly prior to the one we find.

It is the same as saying no one has ever observed speciation or that microevolution and macroevolution are the same underlying process. They won't admit that the difference between species is so slight as to be undifferentiable to the layman. If you can get through this barrier, their argument reverts to macroevolution is different than micro because there is no explanation of how one mammal is a cow and another is a horse.

Of course the explanation is there for anyone to see, but
there are none so blind as those that will not see.


778 posted on 12/21/2004 6:17:17 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: shubi
They, as usual, refuse to infer that there was a more transitional form slightly prior to the one we find.

We infer nothing unfound or unfounded. That's the point.

I will take on an "unprovable" premise if Scripture demands it and I admit it. TOE demands the acceptance of certain premises without any divine involvement. Who is more gullible?

779 posted on 12/21/2004 7:04:57 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Evolution is a weak theory that I don't believe in. I KNOW G-d exists.


780 posted on 12/21/2004 7:06:46 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
Knowing that God exists and believing in evolution are not contradictory. Numerous scientists and and religious people and a great many judeo-christian organisations support evolution. It is a lie to say that to believe in evolution is to reject God.
781 posted on 12/21/2004 7:13:53 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
We infer nothing unfound or unfounded. That's the point. I will take on an "unprovable" premise if Scripture demands it and I admit it.

Then you are going to have some difficulty living your life, as you can't even infer from your own certain knowledge that the rest of the universe outside the room that you are currently in didn't just stop existing. So you had better stay where you are in case there is no oxygen anywhere else. Nobody is that nihilistic. You don't demand such standards of proof anywhere else in your life.

What you really mean is that you believe that evolution contradicts your interpretation of your holy book and therefore you reject it regardless of the evidence for it, which can never be so complete as to force acceptance if you are set upon rejection.

782 posted on 12/21/2004 7:21:38 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Then ...you can't even infer from your own certain knowledge that the rest of the universe outside the room that you are currently in didn't just stop existing.

This is not an "inference." Rather, it is "founded" on prior experience.

You don't demand such standards of proof anywhere else in your life.

You misunderstand my standard. Data must be found in nature or founded upon sufficient authority.

What you really mean is that you believe that evolution contradicts your interpretation of your holy book

You assume again. I believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis and in microevolution thereafter. How else could Noah have gotten the entire genepool onto the ark?

783 posted on 12/21/2004 7:38:01 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
What is the difference in this context between microevolution and macroevolution? Which modern animals do you think Noah didn't have on the ark? (eg how many insects and fish do you think he was carrying, and how many marsupials?)

Do you reject the abundant physical evidence that the earth is c 4 billion years old and the universe c 14 billion years old as well as rejecting evolution? If so you are rejecting pretty much the whole of science. I ask because anti-evolutionists seem to encompass such a wide spectrum of contradictory beliefs.

784 posted on 12/21/2004 7:46:21 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
What is the difference in this context between microevolution and macroevolution?

If I understand your question, Noah had a gorilla on the ark but not an eastern-lowland gorilla, a mountain gorilla and a western gorilla.

Do you reject the abundant physical evidence that the earth is c 4 billion years old..."

No, I interpret it differently.
Light was created before the stars. That gets it down to a few hundren million. It also eliminates the need for string theory.
The deluge explains the rock strata. If you do an experiment with several thousands of gallons of water, some silt and sand and a few dead critters, you get the same thing.
Here's a question:How do fish leave fossils? "Modern" ones don't.

785 posted on 12/21/2004 8:14:25 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
How many insects and fish on the ark please?

Light was created before the stars. That gets it down to a few hundren million. It also eliminates the need for string theory.

How do you explain the light from distant supernovae that never occurred if the universe is young? Why did God create the light from such identifiable events that never happened? Is God an habitual liar?

The deluge explains the rock strata. If you do an experiment with several thousands of gallons of water, some silt and sand and a few dead critters, you get the same thing.

No such experiment has explained any such thing. The physical evidence of the age of the earth is as conclusive as any evidence ever can be.

How do fish leave fossils? "Modern" ones don't.

Fossilisation of any creature is an incredibly rare event. I would have thought the question "Why are there few fossils of modern fish?" a much tougher one for anyone who doubts evolution or supports the idea of flood geology.

786 posted on 12/21/2004 8:34:43 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
If I understand your question, Noah had a gorilla on the ark but not an eastern-lowland gorilla, a mountain gorilla and a western gorilla.

I forgot to remind you about marsupials. How did they get from Australasia (and Antarctica unless you accept an ancient earth and plate tectonics) to the Middle East to board the ark? How did they get back to Australasia after the disembarkation? How had they survived in Antarctica at all? (unless you accept an ancient earth and plate tectonics)

787 posted on 12/21/2004 8:45:35 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
How many insects and fish on the ark please?

No fish. What is the problem with insects? a few thousand species would be sufficient.

How do you explain the light from distant supernovae that never occurred if the universe is young?

Dunno. My suspicion: Light begins at infinite speed and decreases exponentially toward 'c.' TORel says that light travels at the same speed regardless of spatial frame of reference but, we have no way of knowing if it is constant over time as we have only observed it with any precision for a few decades.

No such experiment

From IRC:
Experiments in the Colorado State University
Large scale experiments required the resources of a laboratory with the latest technology. Having read their reports on sedimentology, I contacted Colorado State University in the USA. This led to a series of experiments conducted in their modern hydraulics laboratory at Fort Collins. Pierre Julien, a sedimentologist, was in charge of the experiments. They took place in large glass-walled flumes, which allowed observation and filming from above and through the sides of the tanks.
Different sized particles of sand were poured into water circulating in the flume. Variations in current velocity caused the particles to be sorted according to size. At 1 m/s superposed laminae formed laterally in the direction of the current. A reduction of velocity to 0.5 m/s caused larger particles to collect on the previous laminae, always migrating in the direction of the current. An increase in velocity back to 1 m/s caused laminae similar to the previous ones to form, mainly due to friction, on top of the stratum of larger particles. The accumulation of sediment produced a deposit consisting of the downstream part of the lower laminae, part of the sloping stratum of larger particles, and the upstream part of the upper laminae. Each individual deposit formed successively downstream and was therefore younger than the one before it. Variations in current velocity, as found in rivers and oceans, could thus cause deposits to form both vertically and laterally at the same time in the direction of the current.
The flume experiments further demonstrated the mechanical nature of stratification, whereby: (1) Particles segregated according to their size when transported by a current of variable velocity; (2) Desiccation, or drying out, of deposits caused bedding partings; (3) Stratification of the deposit, under both dry and wet conditions, formed parallel to the slope of the deposit, which could exceed 30°.5"

Fossilisation... rare event... "Why are there few fossils of modern fish?" a much tougher one for anyone who doubts evolution or supports the idea of flood geology.

What are your referring to, specifically?

788 posted on 12/21/2004 9:11:56 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Noah had a hundred years to gather the animals into the ark. Besides, they came to him, according to Gen 6:20.


789 posted on 12/21/2004 9:15:09 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

That was a lame list you posted. The "American Jewish Congress" is extremely liberal and certainly doesn't represent Torah Judaism. And certainly isn't a "great many Jews." In fact, there are some excellent Orthodox Jewish scientists who have debunked macro-evolution.


790 posted on 12/21/2004 9:18:38 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl
That was a lame list you posted. The "American Jewish Congress" is extremely liberal and certainly doesn't represent Torah Judaism. And certainly isn't a "great many Jews." In fact, there are some excellent Orthodox Jewish scientists who have debunked macro-evolution.

I don't suppose that the Roman Catholic church represents many Christians either? Is that a liberal organisation too?

791 posted on 12/21/2004 9:45:14 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
I don't suppose that the Roman Catholic church represents many Christians either?

...depends on whom you ask...

792 posted on 12/21/2004 9:56:47 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
How many insects and fish on the ark please?

No fish.

Not good enough. The flood must have been saline or clear. Most fish species could not survive a year in the wrong type of water (and their food sources all require the right salinity too). The post-flood deposition event posits massive stirring of the water.

What is the problem with insects? a few thousand species would be sufficient.

How bizarre. You reject something you call macroevolution, yet you think that a few-thousand species of insect could diverge to between 2M and 30M species within 4? thousand years. In any case, how did 8 people care for even a few thousand insect species with their manifold dietary, heating, humidity etc requirements for a year?

How do you explain the light from distant supernovae that never occurred if the universe is young?

Dunno. My suspicion: Light begins at infinite speed and decreases exponentially toward 'c.' TORel says that light travels at the same speed regardless of spatial frame of reference but, we have no way of knowing if it is constant over time as we have only observed it with any precision for a few decades.

"Dunno" is not good enough when you are proposing bizarre mechanisms for relatively simple observed phenomenae. Your suspicion is disproved as follows: Time dilation works on distant observed events as predicted from their red-shift and a constant lightspeed.

No such experiment

(snip long description of experiment)

And this experiment explains the geological column (including fossilised burrows and inserted complete coral beds and some layers of fine powdery particles that take years to settle) how?

793 posted on 12/21/2004 10:04:57 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
"B: Well then, you're behind the times. I pity the company you work for. Because things like electrical circuits are now being designed by "Genetic Algorithms" which are mathematical algorithms which mimic Darwinian evolution.

I pity the other evolutionists on this board that are getting YOUR help...these programs that "mimic" Darwinian evolution were designed by who? Evolution?

"In fact Genetic Algorithms such as the Monte Carlo Method have been a staple of mathematicians and engineers for decades. I suggest you consider retirement, and let a younger generation of engineers who know what they are doing have a crack at it. "

UNBELIEVABLE! You are using human designed computer programs that mimic "so called evolutionary processes (whatever they are)" to prove that blind random chance can produce the same, or similar complexity that requires directed intelligence to produce. How do you even feed yourself without help? Your are the EXACT evidence that belief in evolutionary theory is a mind killer. You can't even recognize your hypothesis is self-contradictory, and proves MY point!

B: THat biological materials have complex properties and interactions is a fact of nature. Again, here we have a creationists that is at war with reality.

And here we have an evolutionist that spouts tautologies as revelation. We all know, maybe even your 5 year old brother knows that nature is complex, the question is how does insensate (mindless) matter eventually produce consciousness.

I am speaking for myself, cause I am not sure YOU are actually conscious of anything but what your professors have already thought, or allow you to think. I could only wish I could threaten Hell to evolutionists, seeing they are responsible for most of the philosophical foundations for most of the hell of man against man on this earth in the 20th century.

It used to be religions were the base of many human wars, but the killing fields of the 20th century were first seeded with the God-hating philosophy turned loose by Darwin.

Which is a religion and holding true to form in that it first kills the spirit (see Christ and His arguments to the "learned leaders" of His day)

Heck it's all just the "survival of the fittest," don't you know? You and your pals are not innocent of blood, even though your hands never pulled the trigger.

Your minds formed the philosophical bullets that were sold (and are still sold) into the hands of all the great tyrants of the 20th, and now this century. Behind all "isms," and fanatics you will find a godless philosophy that allows, then demands, the demeaning of all opposing viewpoints. You evolutionists are off to a good start.

Ultimately you end up with a Stalin, who after murdering about 10 million Ukrainians was quoted "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." And Stalin was the apex of communism, which came to us from Marx, who so loved "The Origin," he wanted to dedicate "Communist Manifesto," to Darwin.
794 posted on 12/21/2004 10:12:28 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 772 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Those genes in all the same species could have all been designed...neither you or I have any way of knowing whether it was a mutation or designed. Which do you think is more likely?


795 posted on 12/21/2004 10:15:30 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

I'm Jewish. I can't explain on behalf of other religious groups what they believe.


796 posted on 12/21/2004 10:16:46 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine

Go read what DARWIN said about the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, on more than one occasion. Or do you disagree with Darwin's assesment of the problem of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?


797 posted on 12/21/2004 10:17:21 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: bigdakine
From Dinosaur in a Haystack, Gould has some to say about creatobabblers.. "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are rare, to be sure, and for two good sets of reasons geological (gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change... ) But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair minded sceptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.

Does this make anybody else laugh out loud? Gould is saying there are no transitional forms, (he says they are rare, but they're actually are NONE!) because...now hold on to your seat belts!

Because there are GAPS in the fossil record. Why folks, there are no transitional forms...because there are no transitional forms! IDIOTS! O, but there are complete species, suddenly appearing in-toto all the time in the fossil record. And most of them go on unchanged till today (Crocodiles, and Cockroaches 200 million YEARS!)

But wait...we don't get transitional forms, because Uranus was not in the right position, or it was always raining on the days when transitional species were on the earth. Or maybe all transitional species ran off the same cliff every time and we haven't discovered that particular cliff yet.

Or maybe they are hiding up the asses of all the evolutionists on the earth and we have to wait until they are buried and fossilized to discover them. What absolute freaking B.S.!! You people are intellectual children, let alone spiritual midgets, coming up with this petulant, pouting little theory, just because you cannot face a moral and demanding God. Pathetic!
798 posted on 12/21/2004 10:30:45 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

You name any transitional form and I will counter with another evolutionist that is NOT a creationist that says it is NOT a transitional form...let's play!


799 posted on 12/21/2004 10:32:37 AM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Fish aren't mentioned in the Mosaic account. (Sorry for the non-answer.)

Insects would microevolve rather quickly in the absence of numerous predators.

Time dilation works on distant observed events as predicted from their red-shift and a constant lightspeed.

The universal speed of light (relative to different spacial frames) is a function of Planck's universal constant. The observed speed of light is always going to be the same as the speed of light in the observer's frame of reference. If object and observer are in the same time frame, there's no difference (between observed c at object and c at observer). If c was once greater, one would observe "fast" space as if it were older than it really is. If I really wanted to prove my theory, I would need a to examine 'h', not c.

As to the experiment, it shows that:

A. The principle of superposition: ". . . at the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the matter resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lower stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed."

B. The principle of initial horizontality and

C. The principle of strata continuity:

are all disproven because: "Strata can form laterally and vertically at the same time; 2. Strata can form in the same way as sequences of facies; 3. Strata are not always a measure of chronology. "

- quotes from http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-328.htm

800 posted on 12/21/2004 10:36:29 AM PST by derheimwill (Love is a person, not an emotion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850 ... 1,001-1,048 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson