Darwin's Theory is False

[Iasion]

Greetings smallaxe,

Firstly,
some general comments -

Thank you for remaining reasonable in your posts,
it is encouraging that you can express your views without descending to insults.

I try to do the same - criticising your claims, not your person

The main one is the presentation of evidence that is subject to multiple interpretation as incontrovertible fact, such as the "embryo" similarities,

You do not understand this issue fully.
Embryos of different species ARE similar - we can SEE this in photographs.
This DOES teach us something about evolutionary history.
It's a fact, details here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html


But,
a LONG time ago (a century or more), a chap Haeckel took this idea and exaggerated it into a weird theory - that Ontogeny recapitulates Philogeny (development replays ancestry) - which means that embryos would go thru stages which look like ADULT forms of other species they evolved thru. Haeckel used line drawings, and faked some of them to puff up his theory.

SCIENTISTS checked Haeckel's work and found it was not right,
they also noticed he faked some photos.

Thus,
Haeckel's theory (OrP) was rejected LONG long ago.

But,
the underlieing concept of embryo similarities is true, and always was true,
and
studying these similarities (and differences) has increased our knowledge.

You can see actual embryo photos here :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/clips/

Please look at these photos smallaxe -
the similarities are obvious,
do you now agree embryos do look similar?


But the problem is -
creationists claim that biology still teaches OrP,
when this is
100%
totally
completely
absolutely
180 degrees
FALSE !

Yes,
biology DOES still teach that (some) embryos are similar - because they ARE similar
but, no -
biology does NOT teach Haeckel's old OrP theory.

Smallaxe -
your sources are not correct - you are repeating false claims that have been refuted long ago.

Sites like AIG, Tektonics or Dr Dino have FALSE information - you would be wise to check your sources before repeating their false claims.

They also claim that we teach Haeckel's drawings are proof of evolution -
FALSE.

Yes,
you CAN sometimes find the drawings in very old textbooks of low quality
or
even in MODERN books as a historical curiosity.

Just as you can find old books that claim tobacco is good for you - so what?

the failure to illustrate the circular logic in geological dating (the age of rocks are used to determine the age of the fossils contained in these rock formations...which are used to define the agre of the rock formations).

False.
You don't seem to be aware that we have various dating methods -
* Isochron dating,
* radioactivite dating
* luminescence
* fission track
* obsidian hydration
etc.
Such methods do NOT rely at all on fossils.

It is simply UNTRUE to say that dating depends only circularly on fossils -
completely, totally, 100% WRONG.

Whoever told you that is wrong,
please find better sources.

There are many different methods of dating - it is common practice to apply SEVERAL methods if possible. When several different methods agree - we can be confident of the dating.

Sadly,
creationists do not seem to know any of this.

Basically, my complaint is that the THEORY of evolution is presented as a FACT.

This is false,
as well as confused.

You do not seem to understand the difference between :
* evolution as a fact observed in nature
* the THEORY of evolution we use to try and explain how it works

We SEE evolution -
we observe it in the field and in the lab every day -
we see and work with changing allele frequencies all the time.

Evolution is a FACT because we observe it to be so.

But,
the THEORY of evolution is an attempt to explain how the details actually fit together.
The THEORY of evolution is a vast and complex area of study covering many facets - the details of the theory are always being debated, argued, and changed - like all theories.

So,
it what you said is simply NOT TRUE.
Only people who do not understand the difference say that - usually creationists.

We teach the fact of evolution as a fact - the evolution we observe as a fact in nature;
and,
we teach the theory of evolution as a theory - like all theories.

Relativity is taught as a theory, even with all the evidence that shows its strength.

Relativity is indeed a theory -
one that is so well supported by the evidence that it is considered one of the great successes in science.
Every test ever done, anywhere, by anyone - SUPPORTS relativity.
NO test ever disagreed with relativity.
The other theories (e.g. Newton) have been TESTED and found NOT as good as Relativity.

Quantum physics is presented as a theory, even with all of its solid evidence.

Quantum physics is indeed a (set of related) theories -
one that is so well supported by the evidence that it is considered one of the great successes in science.
Every test ever done, anywhere, by anyone - SUPPORTS Quantum physics.
NO test ever disagreed with Quantum physics.
The other theories (e.g. classical particles) have been TESTED and found NOT as good as Quantum physics.

Evolution is posed as the whole truth and no dissent is brooked.

Evolution is indeed a theory -
one that is so well supported by the evidence that it is considered one of the great successes in science.
Every test ever done, anywhere, by anyone - SUPPORTS evolution.
NO test ever disagreed with evolution.
The other theories (e.g. Creation) have been TESTED and found NOT as good as evolution.

It is as if the tables have been turned, the scientific establishment has become the Catholic church of Galileo's time with the same attitude to those who have the temerity to disagree.

Nonsense.
The only "tables turned" is in your inability to accept the evidence -
evolution is as well supported with evidence as relativity.

It is only religious faith which causes creationists to accept relativity and reject evolution - because they think it disagrees with their faith (of course many Christians have no problem with evolution.)

Relativity was accepted (against the odds) because it MATCHED what we OBSERVE -
every test,
every time,
every place,
by every person who did the test.

Evolution was accepted (against the odds) because it MATCHED what we OBSERVE -
every test,
every time,
every place,
by every person who did the test.

The only difference is in creationists' ability to accept the evidence.

I'll put it this way: I've seen many breeds of dogs developed for many purposes; but they all remained dogs. Forgive me for not just accepting your word that my statement is inaccurate at this point.

Dogs descended from wolves - a different species.
This new species evolved within human history - as a direct result of human activity.
This is prima facie evidence of un-natural selection producing a new SPECIES (not quite the same as natural selection, but an interesting case.)

You deliberately chose a SHORT time frame,
then claimed we have never seen an event that takes a LONG time,
and pretended this proves LONG events can not happen,
even though you had to ignore the direct evidence that showed you wrong -
wolves evolving into dogs within human time frames.

Once again -
your argument boils down to :
" anything that takes longer than a human lifetime cannot happen"

We have never seen a giant sequioa growing to full height from a seed -
therefore, according to YOU, they cannot grow to full height.

We have never seen glacier ice flow from mountain top all the way to the to sea,
therefore, according to YOU, glacier ice CANNOT flow from Mt top all the way to the to sea.

This is obviously a false argument -
why do you keep using it?

Before I go into anything in-depth, I have to know the basic outline of what's going on. From what i've studied and read of evolution, I can believe that micro-evolution exists, but to believe that new species can occur due to random mutation in sufficient numbers and mutations to provide the diversity of life that I see on this planet is not a logical conclusion to my mind.

Let's be frank, your posts -
show little knowledge about these subjects,
confuse the most basic terms and concepts,
show no background knowledge of biology or science in general.

But,
you pretend you know better than all the best brains in the world?
When all you have to offer is tired all nonsense apparently lifted straight from AIG which you didn't even bother to check?

I am not here to "debate", I have no illusions of changing anyone's mind. All I am doing here is presenting what I believe, and why I do not believe that Darwinism is a sound theory for the devolopment of life.

Science depends on EVIDENCE -
you produce no evidence for your claims,
and
you dismiss the evidence which shows you wrong.

Yes,
you are not debating,
you are preaching.

This is a science forum - please don't preach here.

(By which I mean - I look forward to evidence-based discussion. You are, of course, completely free to express your views here.)


Iasion

 

[smallaxe0217]

Point 1: I am deeply offended that you assume, as you seem to, that because I lean to the scientific method and received scientific training that I cannot be religious. My agnosticism is a religious agnosticism, and one which I take very seriously indeed (which is why I was so angered by Woody's presumptuous declarations that I was an atheist.)

If you're referring to my comment that "many people use science as a club" I did not mean to infer that YOU personally do so. I have no way of knowing that, and I honestly did not think that you were guilty of such. I was speaking in general terms; my apologies for any misunderstanding.

Point 2: I for one am perfectly aware that being religious does not exclude one from being scientific: the spirtitual and the material aspects of life are not antagonistic, but opposite sides of a coin. Both are necessary, in my view, for a balanced life and a balanced perception of the world.


I agree with you.

Point 3: There is absolutely no need to reject this marvellous tool, the scientific method, that God (if he exists) has given us, or to reject any of the things we find using that tool. To my mind that would be not only insane, but profane.


I agree with you here too. I do not reject the scientific method. I would disagree with you on macro-evolution, but I would not say that the scientific method is wrong. I didn't even mention the scientific method!

On that basis your mission was accomplished before you ever got here. I trust you will stay around long enough to learn some other things that will give you a better picture of God's Universe.


As long as the experience is good, I'll be around

And by the way, I have observed macro-evolution, just as surely as I have observed Torvill and Deane dance Bolero. Both were delightful.

Where did you observe macro-evolution? (a honest question).

I prefer Salsa myself...

 

[The Devil Inside]

He went to Abraham's bosom where Abraham and all the OT saints resided. Jesus came out and brought them with him. I hope you can join them someday.

dont quote wikipedia at me, as i have already told you.
give me a reputable source with details.

 

[Iasion]

Greetings,

He went to Abraham's bosom where Abraham and all the OT saints resided. Jesus came out and brought them with him. I hope you can join them someday.

That's funny.

I looked at that page on Wiki -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham's_bosom
and this is what it see on that page :

"Of course, this is complete fantasy, and not supported by scripture, let alone evidence."

So, your own source says this view is a complete fantasy.

Do you see why Wiki is not considered a reliable source?

(Edit: Gee, what a surprise - that sentence has dissappeared from Wiki. Proving my point, again.)

Iasion

 

[smallaxe0217]

Greetings,

Pardon?
What does this have to do with abiogenesis or evolution?

Both have some random component(s)
along with NON-random components.

But creationists like to ignore the non-random parts, emphasize the small random part -
and then protest that it could not come about purely by "random chance".

Your response does not show any sign that you grasped this issue.

Well, let me state what I have gotten:
Chemical reactions are not random.
Mutations are random.
The probability of a given chemical reaction occuring is random.

If, according to abiogenists, the chemical reaction that created life occured, what made that reaction occur? The reaction is not random; the OCCURENCE of that reaction is random.

If, according to Darwinists, the mutations that drive evolution occured, what made that mutation occur?

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Just as I thought.
You still do not grasp the issue.
Random-ness is NOT the "entire hinge".
It appears you are not able to grasp this.

Chemistry is NOT random - even though individual atom's behaviour cannot be predicted.
Wave formation is NOT random - even though individual water molecules behave randomly.
Weather formation is NOT random - even though individual air molecules behave randomly.

On the contrary; I do not think you understand me. My focus on randomness is not on Chemistry, Wave formation or Weather formation; it is on the individual atom, the individual water molecule and the individual air molecule. The interactions of those individual and specific things is what created life according to what I understand of abiogenesis, not the general basic principles that govern the Chemical reation of elements whether they are on Earth, Mars, Alpha Centauri or wherever.

Like I said -
creationists go out of their way to EMPHASIZE the RANDOM parts
then IGNORE the NON-RANDOM parts
then protest that "it could not happen purely by random chance"
when no-one said it DID (apart from the creationists who got it wrong.)

OK.

With regards to abiogenesis, how did life begin?

With regards to evolution, what drives the evolution mechanism?

Dear me.
You STILL do not understand the different between :
* origin of LIFE (from non-life)
* origin of SPECIES (from previous species)
If you don't grasp this, you will never understand these issues.

Please explain it to me, that I may grasp it.

The hostility is towards false, ignorant but faithful beliefs being pushed as science onto young people who are learning.

Whether or not they are false are for the young people to decide.

Strictly speaking, that is correct.
It IS remotely possible that life was STARTED by a CREATOR
THEN it evolved.
You will find some scientists who agree this is true.
We do not know for sure how life started.

However,
the time+energy+matter -> simple self-replicating chemicals
is probably the most likely cause.

I agree with you that we do not know for sure how life started. I disagree with your time+energy+matter conclusion, but everyone must decide what seems most reasonable to them. The possibility exists that life was started by a Creator, and that is the crux of Creationism. I personally find it easier/more reasonable to believe in a Creator.

Once again, you have it wrong.
You seem to agree that some things cannot be studied in a lab, but only by obseravtion
But then you say you disagree?

I said I disagree that only observation can be used as a scientific study.

Pardon?
You do not make sense here.
The facts are clear - some things cannot be reproduced in lab - that does NOT mean they are not true.

Thank you very much! You've just answered anyone who would say "Prove to me using scientific evidence that God exists. Have you ever seen the essense of God?"

I am not inferring that this is something you would say, mind you. I agree 100% with your conclusion above though.

Furthermore,
We HAVE done experiments that reproduce PART of what MIGHT have been abiogeness (Miller / Urey.)
We HAVE done many 1000s of expeiments which support evolution.
We have NEVER seen an experiment that disgrees with evolution.

The first statement is not a proof of abiogenesis, it is evidence of part of what might have been it.

The second statement presents a preponderance of evidence which can be interpreted either way. Those who supported Eugenics probably did 1000s of experiments as well.

The third statement made me think of something that I noticed in biology class back in the day. Why is it that most mutations that occur in nature actually hinder the creature?

You are mis-informed.
Evolution is a biological fact.
There is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
At least - not to a biologist.
These terms were made up by creationists -
* micro-evolution is what they have been forced to admit, because we see it
* macro-evolution is what they reject, (because it takes longer than a lifetime)

I always thought that micro-evolution referred to adaptation in a given species which remained that same species, while macro-evolution referred to one species becoming a new species all-together.

All I am doing in rejecting macro-evolution is the same thing that many people do in rejecting a belief in God; they don't believe what they can't see.

There is NO barrier between micro and macro
they are fake terms made up by creationists.

From www.dictionary.com

3 entries found for macroevolution.
mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion Audio pronunciation of "macroevolution" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mkr-v-lshn, -v-)
n.

Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

macro·evo·lution·ary (-sh-nr) adj.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

macroevolution

n : evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

macroevolution

macroevolution: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

Source: On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion Audio pronunciation of "microevolution" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mkr-v-lshn, -v-)
n.

Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

micro·evo·lution·ary adj.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion (mkr-v-lshn, -v-)
n.

Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Main Entry: mi·cro·evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: 'mI-krO-"ev-&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level —mi·cro·evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

microevolution

n : evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

The argument is essentially as follows -
micro occurs all the time, so we are forced to agree
but
macro takes ages, and no one person has ever seen ages
therefore, we pretend macro does not occur.
This is just silly.

It's like saying :
we see this glacier flowing very slowly to the sea -
we have seen the glacier move 200m towards the sea,
(and it took 80 years)
but
no one person has ever seen the glacier move the whole 5km to the sea,
(because it would take centuries)
therefore the glacier does not flow to the sea.

This is obvious nonsense.
Just like the bizarre and fake distinction between micro and macro.

I am speechless.

Ok, I can talk now. How can you compare the effects of glacial movement, which CAN be seen and measured on a regular basis over periods much less than 80 years, with a process whose proponents say takes millions of years? Who has said that glaciers do not flow towards the sea? With all due respect Iasion, this anology is very faulty.

Furthermore, you are basically saying that you believe that macro-evolution occurs, even though you can't see it happen over the time; yet if I were to say that creation occured even though I didn't see it, I would be ridiculed. What is the difference? Is it just because you believe one thing and I believe another?

Pardon?
I fear you do not understand this at all.
Evolution has random components and non-random.
Evolution is not "random" per se.
I did not say it was random - YOU did.

Please educate me as to what the random components are, and whether or not they are essential to the entire process of evolution.

Pardon?
We discovered this new species in recent years, and it MUST have evolved since the underground was built.

This is prima facie evidnce of evolution.
Or do you believe that God created this mosquito in recent years?

No, I believe that it could have always existed in caves and was recently discovered in the underground.

False.
There is NO evidence for creation -
none, nada, zip, zilch, zero, nothing...

If YOU think there is - please produce it.

I have in my pocket a genuine cell phone that evolved from a bunch of spare parts. Over many long years of shaking together in a sand sifter, the parts finally assembled together to form this most excellent LG phone. Do you believe that story?

My friend just had a baby. She told me that the baby came from a batch of amino acids that finally found the right combination to mutate and develop into a human baby. Do you believe THAT story?

Dolly the cloned sheep wasn't cloned and created by human scientists, she just appeared.

Your evidence of abiogenesis is that experiments based on theories of what the primorial soup may have consisted of, resulted in the creation of some of the possible amino acids that may have formed a protein.

My evidence of creation is that every tool or instrument or gadget that you see around you was created by a human being for a specific purpose. If these gadgets, which are nowhere as complex as human beings are, clearly show that they were created by intelligent beings, then what does that say about humans?

I see you also don't understand how evidence and proof work.

"Proof" is for mathematicians and moonshiners.
There is never 100% proof of scientific theories (a basic fact which few creationists can properly grasp.)

Then why do so many people ask for proof of God's existence, and crow whenever one admits that it cannot be proved? Or are philosophical/religious theories exempt from that disclaimer?

What happens is we collect EVIDENCE that either :
* supports the theory
* disagrees with the theory

As the evidence mounts that supports a theory, we become more and more sure it is correct.

Such is the way with evolution -
HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of tests and experiments and observations have been done to test the truth of evolution -
* every one SUPPORTS evolution
* NONE disagree with evolution

Indeed -
the evidence that supports evolution is SO VAST, so enormous, so clear and obvious to those who study it - that evolution is considered essentially "proven" (in popular terms that is.)

That is why you will see two different answers sometimes -
* no, evolution is not 100% proven because nothing is in science (a strict scientific viewpoint)
* yes, evolution is "proven" because the evidence is so over-whelming (in popular terms.)

So please, no more words games about "proven".

It's not a matter of word games or overwhelming evidence, it's a matter of what worldview one chooses to hold and use to interpret said evidence.

I don't think I'll get to reply to the other posts at this point in time (kinda late), but I just wanted to comment on something that someone said, about this being a science forum and thus no religion should be preached (or something like that).

I didn't come here to "preach" but to discuss and learn, as well as to say what I think about whatever issues I feel like discussing based on what I see. If the main purpose of this forum is to bash religion and to not discuss it, please let me know so that I can stop wasting my time and yours. Also, you could be honest in titling the forum, since it said "Philosophy/religion". You don't have to agree with me, but I find it quite arrogant for anyone to infer that I should stop talking about what I believe because it is "preaching" in their view.

Peace.

 

[qwerty mob]

I am speechless.

Hi, speechless!

 

[Iasion]

Greetings again,

If, according to abiogenists, the chemical reaction that created life occured, what made that reaction occur?

What makes calcium react when it meets water?
Nothing MAKES it happen, in the sense of some being DIRECTING it.
Chemicals react according to the laws of chemistry and physics.

If, according to Darwinists, the mutations that drive evolution occured, what made that mutation occur?

Mutations occur all the time, for various reasons -
* radiation
* imperfect copying
(remember that evolution is driven by more than mutation.)

You have a few mutations compared to your parents.
Every human on the planet is a mutant.

With regards to abiogenesis, how did life begin?

We don't know.

With regards to evolution, what drives the evolution mechanism?

Well, some important "drives" are :
* isolation of small populations
* genetic drift
* mutation
* differential survival rates
It is great you want to learn - here is a good place to start :
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Please explain it to me, that I may grasp it.

Sure

ABIOGENESIS -
* life STARTED from non-life
* long ago,
* once,
* we don't know how,
* it's chemistry

EVOLUTION -
* life CHANGES
* all the time,
* even now,
* we see and study it every day,
* it's biology.

and most importantly :

COMMON DESCENT thru NATURAL SELECTION -
* all life on earth,
* descended from a common ancestor
* (which lived long ago);
* thru random mutation
* and (NON random) natural selection


Typically,
this is what creationists are really disagreeing with.

Let us try to use terms carefully - often when we say "evolution" we really mean CDNS (Common Descent thru Natural Selection.) I will be careful from now on about this, and I can see that I have used these concepts loosely and this has helped to confuse the issues.

So,
let me be clear -
we DO see evolution happening right there in front of us -
we SEE alleles change over time, we SEE creatures change.

But,
smallaxe is right - we have not directly observed that all life descended from a common ancestor.

We drew this conclusion from the evidence (but the evidence for this conclusion is very strong - as strong as any theory ever gets.)

Evolution = observed directly.

Common Descent = concluded from evidence.

Whether or not they are false are for the young people to decide.

Really?
You believe children should be allowed to choose on any issue?

Such as,
say
SATANISM?
Would you support a class on SATANISM to allow children to decide if that is the true way?

Or, how about
HOMOSEXUALITY?
Would you support a class teaching all about HOMOSEXUALITY to allow children to decide if that is the right choice?

Or, how about
DRUG USE?
Would you support a class teaching all about DRUG USE to allow children to decide if that is the true or false choice?

No.
You only support CHOICE when it means sneaking your myths into science classes.

but everyone must decide what seems most reasonable to them.

Nonsense.
I am sure you do not run your life this way.

Do you let your boss decide whether to pay you?
Do you let street thugs decide whether its right to steal your car?
Do you let children decide if violence and drug use is more reasonable for them?
No way.

You only argue like this when you want your myths to be accepted on equal footings as evidence-based science.

It's nonsense - you know it, I know it.

Thank you very much! You've just answered anyone who would say "Prove to me using scientific evidence that God exists. Have you ever seen the essense of God?"

You are welcome
You are most welcome to BELIEVE in God - I do too.

You are most welcome to believe anything you wish - go right ahead.

But,
if you make CLAIMS on a science forum - expect to be challenged

The second statement presents a preponderance of evidence which can be interpreted either way.

This is complete and utter nonsense.
The experiments ALL support evolution.
NO experiment supports Creationism.

But amazingly, creationists repeat this claim over and over, so many times, that some have come to believe it.

Those who supported Eugenics probably did 1000s of experiments as well.

Yup,
and they were nonsense "experiments".
And when scientists checked - they dismissed it as nonsense, the scientific process worked just fine (if always too slow.)

Such is the way of science - it's about trying to DISPROVE - not to prove - an important concept I commend to your attention.

A scientist does not win the Nobel prize for agreeing with his old crusty established professor - he wins it by showing the old prof WRONG.

The first person to show evolution is wrong will be acclaimed the best scientist of ALL TIME - INSTANTLY - the Nobel prize committee will jump on a plane and give every medal they have in stock to this person without question ...

The thing is - we have SO MANY tests which show it's right, and so much evidence of HOW it's right - that we all know it will never be proved wrong in practice.

Sure,
details will change - but the bedrock will not - we've SEEN it.

The third statement made me think of something that I noticed in biology class back in the day. Why is it that most mutations that occur in nature actually hinder the creature?

Very simple.
If you break something, it is likely to be to it's detriment - only a very few mutations will help.
Which is exactly what evolution says.
Detrimental mutations will die out, but beneficial ones will accumulate - we SEE this.

I always thought that micro-evolution referred to adaptation in a given species which remained that same species, while macro-evolution referred to one species becoming a new species all-together.

Typically, this is how the terms are used. They came from CREATIONISTS originally, now they are in common use.

Another way of looking at it is this:
* micro-evolution is short term
* macro-evolution is long term

See how your definition of macro-evolution explicity uses the words "geologic time".

So,
in our short lives we SEE short-term evolution,
but,
we do not ever get to see LONG term evolution directly
(because it takes far more than a lifetime.)

No human can experience "geologic times",
so no human can see these LONG term changes directly.

A specific example of what I think you mean by this would be a new species which has features never seen before - e.g. a bizarre crature which used WHEELS to move could conceivably evolve I guess. Of course, no human will see such a VERY LONG TERM process happen - all we could see would be a part of it.

Your argument amounts to saying :
" if it takes longer than a lifetime, it's not true"

It's not a good argument - which was my point about sequoias and glaciers - we see part of the process, and we can easily see how the whole process works.

We DO have ways of looking across time - genomes, fossils, geology - which allow us to see long term changes.

Science CAN study things that take AGES, e.g. :
* continental drift
* volcano formation
* climate change

How can you compare the effects of glacial movement, which CAN be seen and measured on a regular basis over periods much less than 80 years, with a process whose proponents say takes millions of years? Who has said that glaciers do not flow towards the sea? With all due respect Iasion, this anology is very faulty.

Both processes are continuous.
We SEE both of them taking place.

Once again - your argument amounts to :
" it takes a LONG time - therefore it is not true "

If we look as one person - we can see SHORT TERM changes,
but
If we use scientific methods to extend our view to a long time (using say, reports over many years in the case of glaciers, OR perhaps using fossils and other methods) then we see LONG TERM changes.

Both processes - glaciers, and evolution, are taking place continuously.

Explain where YOU think the barrier is between short term changes (that you call micro-evolution) and long term changes (what you call macro-evolution.)

If you can see that glacier ice can flow from mountain top to sea in 500 years, even if no one person sees it happen from start to finish;

then

what stops evolution over long periods leading to new species?

There is no barrier to glacier movement after one human lifetime,
why do you think there is any such barrier in evolution?

This mistake is the single most common mental block in creationist thinking -
they think that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different things.

They are not.

Micro-evolution is evolution in the shorter term,
Macro-evolution is evolution in the longer term.

Or, another way of saying it :

Micro-evolution is macro-evolution in the shorter term,
Macro-evolution is micro-evolution in the longer term.

Furthermore, you are basically saying that you believe that macro-evolution occurs, even though you can't see it happen over the time;

No.

We SEE evolution happen.
If we study for a short time, we see short term changes.
If we study for a long time (using say, fossils), we see long term changes.

However,
we DO see new species form, as this does not always take ages.

May I suggest this excellent article here :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I mean excellent as in:
clear, quality production,
well argued with facts,
explains macro-evolution and related concepts well.

Remember that many Christians have no problem with evolution - the Pope and Catholics, and Anglicans are all fine with it (called Episcopalians in US.)

yet if I were to say that creation occured even though I didn't see it, I would be ridiculed. What is the difference? Is it just because you believe one thing and I believe another?

We SEE evolution happening in the short term when we look at nature.
We SEE evidence for long-term changes (what you call macro-evolution) in the long term evidence.
We have SEEN new species form.

We have never seen ANY evidence for creation.

Can you really be pretending they are the same?


How about we consider some specific examples -
we HAVE observed some new species form in the time we have been studying nature. It does not always take geologic ages for a new species to develop from another.

Got that?
We HAVE seen new species form.

We HAVE seen macro-evolution happen, right in front of us - mice, fruitflies, cichlids.

Here are some examples - I am sure you will be very keen to read about these :
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Please educate me as to what the random components are, and whether or not they are essential to the entire process of evolution.

Consider a jigsaw - all randomly jumbled,
we pick a random piece - does it fit?
(initially, "does it fit?" means "does it have an edge?", later, we try to fit to other pieces as well as the straight edge.)
If no, we throw it back,
if yes, we put it in place...

Eventually we have a complete picture - from a random process (picking any old piece from the box), we filtered out bad results and kept good results - we SELECTED from a random source - the result being very NON-RANDOM.

The creationist caricature of this would be :
"imagine throwing the jigsaw puzzle in the air and having it fall perfectly complete - what nonsense !"

Or the famous 747 from a junkyard tornado - obvious nonsense.

But,
a better analogy would be :

imagine a very large outdoor junkyard with parts of many 747s on shelves, run by an old air force engineer who mantained 747s and knew them well

it's in tornado valley, this junkyard - every time a tornado comes thru - it tosses a few parts off the shelves into the ground...

when the owner picks them up, he takes them into his big garage where he is trying to make a 747 - he puts the part where he thinks it belongs...

eventually,
bit by bit, the 747 is built.

See?
We have a random input which is GUIDED by a selection process - giving a very NON-random result, because a result was SELECTED for as we went along.

But
all too often, creationists like to say it's "ALL RANDOM" therefore it can't be true - it's a false argument, it's NOT all random.

Talk Origins has some great info:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

I have in my pocket a genuine cell phone that evolved from a bunch of spare parts. Over many long years of shaking together in a sand sifter, the parts finally assembled together to form this most excellent LG phone. Do you believe that story?

My friend just had a baby. She told me that the baby came from a batch of amino acids that finally found the right combination to mutate and develop into a human baby. Do you believe THAT story?

Silly nonsense.
Please don't do that.
I am sure you know better.

Your evidence of abiogenesis is that experiments based on theories of what the primorial soup may have consisted of, resulted in the creation of some of the possible amino acids that may have formed a protein.

Look,
I don't claim "evidence" - I suggested how it might probably have worked and cited some famous experiments - read the papers if you want to know more.

My evidence of creation is that every tool or instrument or gadget that you see around you was created by a human being for a specific purpose. If these gadgets, which are nowhere as complex as human beings are, clearly show that they were created by intelligent beings, then what does that say about humans?

That's not evidence.
We are not tools - it's a false analogy.

Then why do so many people ask for proof of God's existence, and crow whenever one admits that it cannot be proved? Or are philosophical/religious theories exempt from that disclaimer?

Belief in God is a faith issue.
(Everyone is welcome to BELIEVE in things.)

Biology is not a faith issue.
If you make claims about biology, (especially ones based on religious myths), expect to be challenged

It's not a matter of word games or overwhelming evidence, it's a matter of what worldview one chooses to hold and use to interpret said evidence.

You chose to believe myths with no evidence,
you reject science based on evidence.
It's not a choice between tea and coffee -
it's a choice between correct and in-correct.

There is a "world-view" that the earth is flat - having a world view does make one right.

The evidence shows evolution is an accurate "world-view" and that creationism is an inaccurate "world-view".

I didn't come here to "preach" but to discuss and learn, as well as to say what I think about whatever issues I feel like discussing based on what I see.

Well, fair enough - you are entirely entitled to express your views here, whatever they are

But it's a science forum - so we like to talk in scientific terms...

If you make a claim here,
you won't hear
"Amen Brother " .. "Praise Jesus" ...
rather you will get -
"hang on - what's the evidence"

If the main purpose of this forum is to bash religion and to not discuss it, please let me know so that I can stop wasting my time and yours.

Oh no.
I would not want you to leave because we "bash" people.
Your comments are indeed welcome, all views should be heard.

And let me commend you on your tone - you stood up to strong criticism of your faith without breaking into insults and swearing - well done sir - that is very rare indeed.

Also, you could be honest in titling the forum, since it said "Philosophy/religion". You don't have to agree with me, but I find it quite arrogant for anyone to infer that I should stop talking about what I believe because it is "preaching" in their view.

That's a fair point.
Of course religious and philosophic issues are relevant.
I did not mean to belittle your beliefs at all,
nor to censor or muzzle you.
I am sorry if I offended you on that point.

But,
we are in a science arena -
so when you make claims about science, debate will follow.

And when you make claims of faith - I will say "boring!"

Because telling us your beliefs doesn't lead to many choices :
* Hallelujah brother - so true...
* I don't believe that, I believe this . blah, blah, blah ....

But
discussion based on evidence that we can CHECK to see if it's right, is much more fruitful...

Don't you wanna see me shown wrong?
There are errors in my posts that I can see already - I hope you are researching carefully to try and find my mistakes.


Iasion

 

[Woody]

Iason says:

That's funny.

I looked at that page on Wiki -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham's_bosom
and this is what it see on that page :

"Of course, this is complete fantasy, and not supported by scripture, let alone evidence."

That's funny. I click on the link and I do not see that statement -- are you sure you aren't seeing things, and having a fantasy not supported by evidence?

Abraham's Bosom according to the bible (Luke 16:22).

I'm glad you finally figured out that I do provide evidence -- if you will use your left mouse button. lol

 

[Silas]

Ah, the dangers of relying on wikipedia!

Whoever wrote that (if it ever was on that page) was probably an anti-Christian Jew, pointing out that the phrase and the concept of "Abraham's Bosom" is solely a New Testament element, and not found in the Jewish Scriptures.

 

[smallaxe0217]

Nope, it occurs, objectively. Unless you can provide an observation or characterization of a mechanism which allows simple cellular life to evolve but excludes more complex celluar life, your illogical assertion that macroevolution is accepted on "faith " rather than observation and experiment amounts to either ignorance, neglect, or denial.

It does not occur, objectively. The definition of macro-evolution involves periods of millions of years, and no direct observation of any process over that time is possible. Evidence of microevolution is used to infer that macro-evolution occurs, but it has not been directly observed or experimented on. If your worldview is correct, then maybe millions of years down the road we will see the effects of evolution, but the denial at this current juncture is not mine.

Keep bleating about "faith" though, if it indeed makes you feel warm, fuzzy and special.


Your hostility is not warranted.


If faith prompts one write demonstrably false statements about macroevolution on internet message boards occupied by persons who know better, then we are in disagreement of its' utility or value, and I want nothing to do with it.

Have a nice day.

Nice talking to you too.

 

[Ophiolite]

Where did you observe macro-evolution? (a honest question).
..

In the fossil record.

 

[smallaxe0217]

Greetings,




This is nonsense,.
You do not appear to be making any effort to grasp this.

There is no barrier between micro and macro - they are false concepts made up by creationists.


I posted definitions that proved this wrong in my previous post.

Your argument sounds as silly as this one:

* giant sequoia trees take 400 years to grow to full size
* humans have only seen sequoias grow a fraction of full size
* NO human has ever seen a sequoia grow to full size

Therefore sequoias do not grow to full size.
(even though we can observe full size sequoia trees.)

There is a major difference between 400 years (a record which can be observed from human records and history) and millions of years (a record which cannot be directly observed at this point in time). Furthermore, the first point you made can only be inferred from the second and third points. Someone seeing a sequoia tree would not automatically say that it took 400 years to grow to full size, although they would say it took a long time. Humans would see sequioa trees growing a fraction of full size, they would compare the size of the young trees to the size of the mature tree to determine the rate of maturation, and then they would conclude based on the rate of maturation that the tree takes 400 years to mature. The difference between this and macro-evolutionists is that the macro-evolutionists state their conclusion FIRST (macro-evolution occurs and took millions of years) and then interpret all the evidence through those filters.


It is not "faith" that makes us believe in (what YOU call "macro"evolution)
it is the EVIDENCE we have observed.

Evidence that strengthens your faith in the theory...and as I just said, I feel that most supports of macro-evolution interpret the evidence through those filters. That is only human, since all evidence is subjective (it can mean one thing to you and another to me), and that is the way it will always be.

Essentially your argument boils down to:

anything which takes longer than one human lifetime is not true

Which is obvious nonsense.

Why do you think this obvious silly argument means anything?
That is not my argument at all, thus I won't respond to it.



Your posts are prima facie evidence that you are an ignorant fundy.
Your posts show considerable ignorance of science.
Your posts show claims that fundies like to make.

Totally,
completely,
100%
WRONG.

Whatever happenened to attacking my views and not my person?

Science is based on evidence, not faith.
But creationists like to pretend otherwise,
so they can pretend their faithful religious views
are on a par
with evidence-supported science.

How silly.

Iasion

I do believe you just preached in your last point

Science is based on evidence, and facts.

Interpretation of that evidence leads to various theories, like Darwinism or abiogenesis or creationism, which are dependent not only upon the physical evidence of science but also upon the philosophical foundation of the proponents of each theory. As long as the philosophical foundation is an important part of that theory, then that theory cannot be called science.

Reality is based on more than what our eyes and instruments can see or feel, there are things that science cannot define but are still real.

 

[SnakeLord]

There is a major difference between 400 years (a record which can be observed from human records and history) and millions of years

Would you still make that statement even though there are "records" dating back millions of years, (fossils)? You mention history and records, without realising that fossils also come under those categories. Do you have a valid reason why fossils should not be allowed or considered?

The definition of macro-evolution involves periods of millions of years, and no direct observation of any process over that time is possible.

Speciation has been observed. Speciation is macro evolution.

 

[smallaxe0217]

Greetings,

Rubbish.
This false claim is often made by the faithful,
but it is not true.

We have many works far better attested than the Bible.

Only seven copies of Plato's works exist, and the time span between the original and the copy us 1200 years. There are only about 10 good manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War, and the time span between the original and the copy is 1000 years. On the other hand, there are five thousand Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, dating to within a generation of the actual writings. The Old testament's oldest copy of a Hebrew manuscript was dated from 980 AD, until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. Even though the scrolls were more than a thousand years older than the next oldest dated manuscript, they proved to be word-for-word identical with the standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text, with the variation coming from slips of the pen and spelling variances.


Also,
claims about the NT being the "best-attested" or "most verifiable" confuse two UN-related issues -
* reliability of the text,
* truthfulness of the contents.


Firstly, it is not true that the NT is "the most verifiable document in all of antiquity" because there are some documents even older than the NT for which we have the ORIGINAL literally carved in stone (e.g. Behistun inscription, Egyptian tomb inscriptions, the Rosetta Stone, the Moabite Stone) - making them absolutely 100% accurately attested from the original because they ARE the original, and thus much better attested than the NT.

Of course, there is a major difference between inscriptions in stone and things written on parchment or paper. A more honest comparison would be between the documents written at a similar time, such as the works of the Greek playwrights and philosophers.

http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html

It's true the NT is fairly well-attested (in terms of quantity) compared to SOME ancient writings - in the sense that we have many old copies (24,000 or more in total). However the vast majority of these copies are from the middle-ages. The number of NT manuscripts from before the dark ages is about a hundred.

But there are NO originals for ANY of the NT writings - all we have is copies of copies, all varying from each other (that's right - every single manuscript we have is slightly different from every other - not counting very tiny scraps) from long after the alleged events :
* NO copies from 1st century,
* a few tiny fragments from 2nd century (e.g. P52, P90),
* a few UNCOMPLETE copies from late 2nd / early 3rd (e.g. P75, P46),
* several fairly complete copies in 3rd / 4th century.
List by century :
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html
Detailed contents of all NT MSS :
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/EGBMP.htm

We have no originals for any of the historical documents from that period; everything is a copy of something else. The question would be, Were the copies accurate in their reproduction? Even tody, we rely on microfiche and photocopies to disseminate information; not often will we require the original, as long as we know the copy accurately portrays what the orginal was saying. If one will be honest, the New Testament meets the same standard of authenticity regarding its copies as any of the ancient documents accepted as genuine from the same period. This does not mean that the content is true and accurate, but it does mean that we can have every confidence that what the orginal authors wrote is what they intended to say.

And, there is considerable variation in Gospel manuscripts, and it often DOES reach to core beliefs and events :

The words of God at the baptism in early MSS and quotes have
"...this day have I begotten thee"
(echoing Psalm 2) - later, as dogma about when Jesus become god had crystallized, thus phrase became
"..in thee I am well pleased".
If Christians scribes can change the alleged words of God, they can change anything.

I suppose it's not allowed for people to have different recollections of events that they see. If you were in court and the testimony of a group of witnesses meshed PERFECTLY and EXACTLY, what would your conclusion be? Mine would be that they were lying, because such perfection isn't natural. The variations of which you speak serve to further support their authencity; people wrote the Bible under inspiration. But that is another topic for another forum.

Another important variation is the ending of G.Mark - there are four different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending being 16:8

Other MSS variations include :
* the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood,
* the Trinity - found in no Greek MSS before the 16th century!
* the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts,
* the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed the Gospels.
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html

These are just some issues of manuscripts variations - contradictions between different Gospel's versions of the Jesus stories is another very smelly kettle of fish :
* the widely variant birth stories,
* the names of the 12 apostles vary among Gospels.
* the completely irreconcilable Easter morning stories :
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php

In other words,
the text of the NT is corrupt.

To answer these points (which are good and valid points) would get into a discussion of Christian theology, which I KNOW won't be tolerated in this thread. I would be happy to discuss this in another thread, if you are willing. The basic answer I would give at this juncture is that variation is only natural and expected in human documents of history, since they are based on human recollection of events and different people remember different things.

But anyway,
even if we had originals - so what?

Having an original work does not prove it is true.


You are absolutely right. So why would people attack the Bible on the basis of wether it's been changed or not, verifiable or not? If you have a problem with the Bible, then I believe that one's issue should be based on what it says, not on whether or not it's an original or a copy, or if there are variations, or whatever. The main point of verifying a manuscripts source is to be certain that the words of the orginal author(s) are presented as the author intended them to be, and that the author's message is clearly presented. The abundance of manuscripts and copies should be enough to convince any fair-minded observer that the words of the Bible today convey accurately the message that the original authors wanted to tell. Whether or not that message is valid is a different argument.

We have the original MSS for Harry Potter -
does that make it true?

We have the original MSS for LOTR (I think) -
does that make it true?

We have very early MSS for the Book of Mormon -
does that make it true?

We have the ORIGINAL Ancient Pyramid texts inscribed in stone in pyramids over 2000 years old -
does that make those myths true?

No.
Of course not.

The accuracy of MSS has NOTHING to do with the truth of the contents.


I agree with you 100%.


Wiki?
Completely UN-reliable.
Probably the WORST reference you could cite.
(You DO know why, right?)


I know it's all open-source and people can put all kind of junk in there, but I have faith :-D at the very least, it's great in a pinch and can lead to more solid references.

Well,
apart from "respected Biblical sites"
by which I am sure you mean BELIEVERS sites


Well, would you go to an evolution website run by creationists?



Iasion

lalala

 

[smallaxe0217]

Greetings,



Yes, it touches on philosophy,
yes, many have admitted that -
what is your point, exactly?


That if it's philosophical, then it's not scientific.


What?
We DO admit it.
We TOLD you this,
because you were ignorant of the facts.


True, and I amended that in following posts. Abiogenesis and evolution are two different things! Uncle!

We know evolution does not have an answer to abiogenesis - because they are different issues.

YOU did not understand this,
and we had to inform you they are different.

Now YOU have the gall to say WE should "admit it" ?!

Admit something we said ALL ALONG,
somthing YOU did not understand?

What a crock of old dingoes kidneys.

It is exactly this sort of dishonest and ignorant behaviour which causes creationists to be so ridiculed.


Can't people make mistakes anymore? Sheesh...


What nonsense.

So,
you do NOT believe giant sequoias can grow to full height?
you do NOT believe that glaciers can flow to the sea?

This is the very epitome of close-minded ignorance.

Did anyone here SEE God create man?
No.
But you are happy to believe that,
based on no more than an old fairy tale from the Bronze Age.


I'm saying that since you believe in something you can't see, you should not ridicule me for believing something I can't see either. My whole aim is not to say that you are wrong and I am right, but to say that the only difference between me and you is that we have faith in different things. To disagree with me because I believe something differently from you is fine. To call me ignorant because I don't believe what you believe is mean, but technically true from your viewpoint because you view the evidence as being overwhelming for your view. To call me ignorant because I rely on faith for my viewpoint is hypocritical, because that same faith is what you rely on for interpreting the evidence in your own favor.

And please, PLEASE, do not put words in my mouth.

It is clear from your posts you have no intention of learning about these issues,
you are here to PREACH your religious views.

Good luck,
you'll need it


If by learning, you mean "changing my mind and joining your side", then yeah, I don't think I would call my stay here learning. If you mean "changing my views on what evolutionists, athists, abiogenisists(sp, is it even a word?) and sundry secular humanists believe", then I am learning a lot so far.

Besides, a little conflict isn't a bad thing.

And if you can preach your views, why can't I preach mine? What does it mean to "preach" anyways...hmm.


Iasion

hmm hmm hmm...

 

[The Devil Inside]

smallaxe........stop quoting lengthy posts just to say "lalala" or some such bullshit.
thats called "ubertrolling".

 

[SkinWalker]

I think he's actually replying within the quote.. I dunno for sure. I can't be arsed to read it the way he has it done.

 

[smallaxe0217]

Wrong. The fact of evolution is presented as fact, while the theories concerning evolution are presented as theories. It's really quite simple.

As far as I know, the fact of evolution refers to micro-evolution. Darwinism and macro-evolution are the theories. What is your opinion on what the fact and theories of evolution are?

Technically we could say none of them remained dogs, (but they all remained wolves). Still, it's quite early days yet as far as dog breeding goes, and you can already see astounding differences, (for example pug vs great dane). Let's consider that those changes keep escalating.. What's to stop them becoming incapable of mating?

I don't know. Maybe they can, maybe they can't. We don't know for sure; you just believe that it will happen later on, even though you can't see it now. Sounds like the dreaded "F" word to me.


You mean.. the universe?

I always thought the Big Bang was the universally accepted theory for the creation of the Universe these days...and if the Universe began to exist...

you fill in the rest.

 

[smallaxe0217]

smallaxe, See what I mean?

Issac Newton was a religious man, likewise for Edison, Kelvin, Faraday,and many others in the science hall of fame. But somehow "Q" thinks he is above them all, like he is more rational, scientific, and logical than they are, simply because they believed in a God. How obtuse!

The truth of the matter is they (most atheists) do not want to understand a believer's point of view. They've already made up their mind about it -- that all religious people are the same -- it's part of the denial mentality. Nobody said they have to agree with you -- but they just can't get past it.

I agree that many atheists don't see to understand a believer's POV, but sometimes I wonder if it's because they don't want to or because it's just too hard. I mean, it's a human nature to read our own experience into anything we do, we see it if we move to another country where the customs are totally different from what we know, and we find it hard to even begin to understand why those natives do what they do. To be honest, believers find it hard to understand atheists POV as well. It's my naive belief that the best way to understand someone else's POV is to respect them and listen to them. I may not be the best example of it, but i'm trying. Even if I don't get any respect, I still have to give it...if they didn't respect Jesus, why should I expect them to respect me, eh?

 

[smallaxe0217]

Do you know who Martin Gardner is?

No, though I can google him after I post this. What's his claim to fame?