Denial of evolution II

[Clucky]

Well, then. It's much worse than I thought. Particularly eye-opening is the behavior of a 'moderator'. Ophiolite, that you think if I believe in God I must not believe in evolution is retarded.

But you can understand Ophiolite's assumption. Most people who do not see the evidence for evolution, contesting it with such subjectivity, are, unfortunately, fundamentalist zealots. It is wrong of us to judge people and their beliefs, however that is what people have done, do do, and will always do. People can only judge you on how you look, what you say and what you do. They can not decipher the mysterious ether that are your motivations. I can't really see what Ophiolite did wrong.

I was trying to have a civil discussion - I had honest questions and doubts about evolution.

Well, honestly, you seemed a little combative and, many of us, have unfortunately tired of being civil to aggressive fundamentalists. It is good to have questions, it is good to have doubts, though you must temper the way you present them, or we will misinterpret you as somebody who merely seeks to try and diddle on evolution, rather than an inquisitive mind. Honestly, you have nothing to fear from us or your doubts, if you remain balanced. Frankly though, your doubts were probably caused by lies perpetuated by creationist dissenters, who simply will not even listen to the answers we venture. Apparently though, you are willing to listen. Continue answering your questions, but remember, be soft with your tongue, or you could easily be associated with religious zealotry. Unfortunately such a thing goes hand in hand with questioning evolution.

If you so inaccurately assess me, your assessments of anything else are also suspect.

That's not true. Like I said it is easily to confuse someone, especially one with a seemingly combative tone, for a fundamentalist. Remember: it is difficult to discern how people are communicating over the internet, due to the lack of body language. (which is important in such heated debates)

Sorry to have wasted your time.

Don't do it again.

 

[spidergoat]

Specific inadequacies:

Why do you think micro proves macro?

There is no mechanism to prevent changes that would eventually be considered so significant as to qualify as "macro". The difference is merely one of degree.

What about the thousands of non-existent intermediary species?

All species are intermediary species, even yourself. All species were perfectly adapted to their environments. The rate of evolution does change, depending on the amount of change in the environment, so species that didn't last very long were less likely to be fossilized, which is a rare occurrence. In any case, many so-called intermediary fossils have indeed been discovered, animals that represented the transition between dinosaurs and birds, for example...

Why does dna contain information and where does that information come from?

The ToE explains where that information comes from. At first, there are variations, if they are successful, they are preserved. Often a new variation starts off as a copy, then changes to adapt to a new form.

What about the Laws of Thermodynamics, proven true a thousand times over?

Nothing about the ToE violates any law of thermodynamics.

Why are there species like sharks and crocs that haven't evolved for 65 million years?

They do not appear to have changed, but that is only a superficial viewpoint. In fact, there are many species of sharks and crocs, and many that are extinct. The fact is the shark and croc are good at what they do. It's a good body plan.

Trust me, I've heard dozens of explanations for these problems - but the explanations were about as see-through as a teenager's excuse for not completing his homework on time. If the theory of evolution is so rock hard, tried and true, proven over and over, why are there no fallacy free answers? I hope someone can clear this up, but I really am starting to have my doubts.

Please point out the fallacies.

 

[Pteriax]

I must have missed the moderator's bad behavior you refer to and where Ophiolite said God did not believe in evolution. (I sort of doubt he did as that as it would be, I think, like his saying “Unicorns do not swat flies with their tails.”) Can you give links for me to read what you are talking about? What is “much worse”?

I have not insulted you but do get the impression you do not actually want to learn by the "duck and weave" reply you gave me in post 368. (It has been made quite clear to you in several posts that you ignore by again bringing up the first cause problem in 368 that evolution theory has nothing to say about first causes -only about how life forms change and why and remarkably this theory was done prior to any knowledge about DNA coding of how an organism is made or how there may be a slight mutations.)


Also to best of my knowledges you have never corrected or refuted any of my posts with any sort of evidence. Also I am driven to think you do not want to discuse at all by your refusal to tell what type of the mutually contradicting version of Creationism you do accept. Etc. (Your creationism must be well defined before I can try to disprove it as you requested.) - All I know is you are not in the group that thinks God made all the creatures at one time about 6000 years ago. I.e. unlike them, you accept that man came on the scene much later, after the dinosaurs were long gone.

I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt about your desire to learn. We no longer have the services of the Baron here (a definite moderator's mistake, IMHO) so I am happy to have you here letting me make the pro-evolution case by replying, respective fully to you, as I did the Baron from post 83, until he was locally banned. I assume you have read at least post 83 and 131 by now but you have not discussed either or any of the related between. Do you really want to discuss, or just duck and weave to avoid doing so while posting your POV?

I am not trying to dodge, I do want to discuss - or at least I did. I don't see a problem with God creating a creature 8,000 years ago, why would I? The world is millions of years old. I don't even think that contradicts the 6 day creation story in the Bible either. Relativistic to the expansion of the universe if God is at the big bang (center of the universe) then from his perspective only six days pass from the time of the big bang to the rise of man - if you take into account that all matter in the universe is traveling at a relativistic speed away from Him.

No offense spidergoat, but I've heard it all before. I am pretty sure I asked for actual evidence, not your say-so.

Clucky: Yes, I do understand his assumption. I don't like it, but I understand it. And as much experience as you've had with angry fundamentalists, I've had with angry atheists whose only evidence is that to believe differently from them makes you stupid - which is a logical fallacy in itself; not to mention insulting.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

t do get the impression you do not actually want to learn by the "duck and weave" reply you gave me in post 368. (It has been made quite clear to you in several posts that you ignore by again bringing up the first cause problem in 368 that evolution theory has nothing to say about first causes -only about how life forms change and why and remarkably this theory was done prior to any knowledge about DNA coding of how an organism is made or how there may be a slight mutations.)

He has consistently refused to acknowledge the enormous distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. One is a canonical theory while the other is merely a hypothesis with little supporting evidence except the pure logical reasoning that it's not as laughable as the alternative hypotheses.

To muddle abiogenesis with evolution in order to try to attack the theory of evolution--when one knows better--is to argue disingenuously. That's trolling and we ban trolls. If he keeps it up I'm going to raise the issue on the Moderators' subforum and you can all say goodbye to him.

We no longer have the services of the Baron here (a definite moderator's mistake, IMHO)

Max has not been banned and I recently ran into a fresh post by him. He does seem to want to be banned though. He has settled on disingenuous argument as his latest rhetorical technique and that's the most insidious type of trolling. It would not be a mistake to ban a troll.

 

[Ophiolite]

Clucky: Yes, I do understand his assumption. I don't like it, but I understand it. And as much experience as you've had with angry fundamentalists, I've had with angry atheists whose only evidence is that to believe differently from them makes you stupid - which is a logical fallacy in itself; not to mention insulting.

1. It wasn't an assumption, it was a deduction based upon available evidence. How do you resolve your two conflicting statements, one where you imply you have a few doubts about evolution, and the next where you declare you do not believe in a manner that suggests you have never believed it? If you claim I have 'assumed' incorrectly, then please account for that conflict.
2. I am not now, nor have I ever been an atheist. Now you are the one making the assumptions.

 

[spidergoat]

No offense spidergoat, but I've heard it all before. I am pretty sure I asked for actual evidence, not your say-so

My views reflect and summarize the actual evidence. You don't really expect a casual discussion to include peer-reviewed scientific papers with all the data, do you? I call that a stonewalling tactic, since no one is patient enough to gather all that for you, nor is it necessary. In fact, most of your questions only prove that you don't understand the real issues involved. The information question in particular reflects a common creationist fallacy.

 

[Pteriax]

He has consistently refused to acknowledge the enormous distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. One is a canonical theory while the other is merely a hypothesis with little supporting evidence except the pure logical reasoning that it's not as laughable as the alternative hypotheses.

To muddle abiogenesis with evolution in order to try to attack the theory of evolution--when one knows better--is to argue disingenuously. That's trolling and we ban trolls. If he keeps it up I'm going to raise the issue on the Moderators' subforum and you can all say goodbye to him.

I have had enough of this presumptive crap. I stated I would start a new topic if this was the wrong place. I will be terminating my own account after this post. All I want is honest answers. I'm not trolling, I just wanted an explanation other than it is because it is - and deny it all you like, that's exactly what I am getting.

Ophiolite: It was a poor deduction and a false one; there is not much difference in that and an assumption. Get over it. And the atheist bit was at Clucky - if you notice, I was responding to him when I made that comment. I also never said he was one - I was making a point.

Spidergoat: Yes, I do expect to see scientific data. That's what proof is. Maybe then I would understand it better.

Goodbye and have fun patting each other on the back!

 

[Pteriax]

Well, I cannot seem to delete my own account. But don't expect me to reply anymore or look at your replies.

 

[Saquist]

1) It seems highly unlikely that random mutations would cause something like variation in eye color or skin color.

2) Living organisms have safeguards in place in order to prevent errors from occuring.

3) It seems reasonable to assume that the designers of living organisms would have simply chosen to create a certain amount of variation within each species.

Yes, we've discussed those reasons before.
random mutations are limited in what they've accomplished. Everything that has happened so far in genetics to advanced our understanding has of course been through purposeful exerimentation. There have been few break throughs in understanding but many new discoveries, everyone bringing more answer and mankind has been at this for a good century or more now.

But everything I've seen so far agrees there are safeguards are in place from rampant mutation and it would seem that evolution needs a wide latitude as well as a lengthy time table to work change. And even then mutations would be the end of most life through deformation since the far too many of them do not assist.

It would seem DNA's purpose is to control mutation.
That of it's self is quite the brick wall to break through.

 

[Saquist]

On abiogenesis...

Well it has to be connected to evolution.
Logicaly speaking the origin of life would have to be linked to the progression of life somehow. The theories are not the same and of course logic can only take us so far if we are indeed talking about life from lifelesness and not the deposite of life by asteroids and yet even that introduction would have to have some sort of genesis itself.

As far as creation vs. evolution.
Evolution has yet to prove it's case on the timeline.
If you were to ask me which is more probable, an intelligent desiger with a purpose or annomolous mutationational variations producing structured and organized forms....Well there is no force at work...at least gravity pulls matter together and it's mathematicaly confirmable. Life has no such force...It certainly isn't confirmable now because life isn't being created from we can tell. So what ever force created life...happened (in terms of eras) once and apparently nevered happened again.

 

[Ophiolite]

He has consistently refused to acknowledge the enormous distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. One is a canonical theory while the other is merely a hypothesis with little supporting evidence except the pure logical reasoning that it's not as laughable as the alternative hypotheses.

To muddle abiogenesis with evolution in order to try to attack the theory of evolution--when one knows better--is to argue disingenuously. That's trolling and we ban trolls. If he keeps it up I'm going to raise the issue on the Moderators' subforum and you can all say goodbye to him.Max has not been banned and I recently ran into a fresh post by him. He does seem to want to be banned though. He has settled on disingenuous argument as his latest rhetorical technique and that's the most insidious type of trolling. It would not be a mistake to ban a troll.

Frasggle, just what the **** do you think you are doing? That is the most obviously assinine post to come out of your keyboard that I have ever seen.

Pteriax was responding to a comment by BillyT clarifying a post of mine the focus of which was only partially - and arguably not at all - about abiogenesis. So are we both guilty of trolling?

BaronMax and others - including in his time, Saquist - have introduced abiogenesis into discussions on evolution. They have done this repeatedly. They were not threatened with banning before they had produced even a dozen posts. :shrug:

I am not surprised Pteriax has decided to leave after that level of moderator bias and inconsistency. You besmirch your own reputation by that singular action. Get a *****ing grip. (The extra asterisk is a holiday bonus.)

On abiogenesis...

Well it has to be connected to evolution.

Careful Saquist, Fraggle Rocker will ban you for trolling.

It is intimately connected with evolution and in the later stages, if not the earlier stages, natural selection must be at work upon the various species (non biological sense) present in the 'primeval soup', or the 'black smoker environment', or the 'surfaces of the clay prototypes', or wherever it is life actually evolved.

The frustration is that many creationists take this connectedness and treat it as an identity. This conflation of two similar, but distinct concepts enables creationists to argue that disproving one automatically disproves the other. It is certain that some make this argument out of ignorance and others on the basis of intellectual dishonesty.

It would seem DNA's purpose is to control mutation.

Control, not prevent.

 

[spidergoat]

Well, I cannot seem to delete my own account. But don't expect me to reply anymore or look at your replies.

Good job, coward. You really showed us.

 

[Saquist]

Good job, coward. You really showed us.

Not everything is about an immature pissing contest.
Some of us get that some of us don't. It wouldn't hurt if you learned that as well spidergoat.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Frasggle, just what the **** do you think you are doing? That is the most obviously assinine post to come out of your keyboard that I have ever seen. Pteriax was responding to a comment by BillyT clarifying a post of mine the focus of which was only partially - and arguably not at all - about abiogenesis. So are we both guilty of trolling?

Well if I misunderstood, I apologize. It certainly looked that way but we all fuck up occasionally. Apparently Billy didn't get it either and he's pretty perceptive.

BaronMax and others - including in his time, Saquist - have introduced abiogenesis into discussions on evolution. They have done this repeatedly. They were not threatened with banning before they had produced even a dozen posts.

Hey, I can't be everywhere and I didn't catch those.

But my point is not that people bring abiogenesis into a debate about evolution. They just don't understand the concept and they can be set straight. My point is that some of our members pretend not to know things they actually do know, so that they can push a bogus point and hope some of the readers don't catch it. Or simply contradict themselves for effect and hope nobody notices.

I am not surprised Pteriax has decided to leave after that level of moderator bias and inconsistency. You besmirch your own reputation by that singular action. Get a *****ing grip. (The extra asterisk is a holiday bonus.) Careful Saquist, Fraggle Rocker will ban you for trolling.

This isn't my board so I can't ban anybody here. They carefully limit me to Linguistics which never generates any heated controversies.

 

[Ophiolite]

Here is the bottom line

That's trolling and we ban trolls. If he keeps it up I'm going to raise the issue on the Moderators' subforum and you can all say goodbye to him.

The guy has been on the forum for fewer than a dozen posts and you jump all over him and he leaves. Good move.

 

[fedr808]

I am not trying to dodge, I do want to discuss - or at least I did. I don't see a problem with God creating a creature 8,000 years ago, why would I? The world is millions of years old. I don't even think that contradicts the 6 day creation story in the Bible either. Relativistic to the expansion of the universe if God is at the big bang (center of the universe) then from his perspective only six days pass from the time of the big bang to the rise of man - if you take into account that all matter in the universe is traveling at a relativistic speed away from Him.

No offense spidergoat, but I've heard it all before. I am pretty sure I asked for actual evidence, not your say-so.

Clucky: Yes, I do understand his assumption. I don't like it, but I understand it. And as much experience as you've had with angry fundamentalists, I've had with angry atheists whose only evidence is that to believe differently from them makes you stupid - which is a logical fallacy in itself; not to mention insulting.

Heres the fatal flaw of your assumption. You see our day is according to the earth's rotation to the sun equaling 24 hours. But G-d is G-d not a planet so he doesnt even have a real day. All of these assumptions are from OUR point of view, which means that G-d cannot be the big bang.

 

[Pteriax]

Heres the fatal flaw of your assumption. You see our day is according to the earth's rotation to the sun equaling 24 hours. But G-d is G-d not a planet so he doesnt even have a real day. All of these assumptions are from OUR point of view, which means that G-d cannot be the big bang.

I am probably going to regret posting in here again, and I know this is a bit off topic, but I felt this post deserved a response.

My "assumption" is not an assumption at all. Genesis is written from God's perspective not ours. 6 days of our time would pass from creation of the universe to the rise of man from a relativistic position, where He does not physically move and the universe expands around him. I also never said God was the big bang - only that what we call the big bang was the moment of creation and God was there. Hard to imagine, but backed up by everything we know about physics, and can scientifically prove about the age of the universe - and further confirmed by the creation story in the Bible.

On a side note, why don't you write out the word God? If you believe it is sinful to say the name of God, don't worry - God isn't his name, it's what he is. We refer to him by that more as a title than as a name, because no one may know the true name of God.

 

[Ophiolite]

Since you are back I would still appreciate a direct answer to my question "How do you resolve your two conflicting statements, one where you imply you have a few doubts about evolution, and the next where you declare you do not believe, in a manner that suggests you have never believed in it? "

 

[Billy T]

I am not trying to dodge, I do want to discuss - or at least I did. ...

In your reply to my post 368, which illustrated with slowly forming large salt crystals the fact that an extremely improbable result (The largest crystal one was made of any particular set of NaCl molecules), did not prevent it from forming, In essence, you ignore this point, avoided discussion, and replied:

But there needed to be a chemist to set up the slow crystal forming conditions.

That is why I said you were ducking the point that some extremely improbable set MUST happen, both in the case of NaCl crystal forming and some highly improbable set of currently living life forms if there is to be as you seem to accept great diversity of life forms, which are very different now than back in the time of the dinosaurs, etc. I.e. instead of duck and weave by asking how life got stated, address the fact that if many life forms exist, any particular set on any particular planet where life is possible will be some extremely improbably collection unless:

Some very powerful agent is continually guiding* mutational changes and / or making new life from non-living matter to arrive at this current particular set, which now includes man and all the other now living creatures, including the Preá (see post 83, & 131) which have been made by this agent less than 8000 year BP. - I.e. the God made life forms according to his plan, POV, which has been constantly changing. (Obviously, He also made most of the earlier ones go extinct to make space for the new ones.)**

SUMMARY: If you really wanted to discuss, don't switch the subject to how life got its start, but respond to the point I was making with post 368 - Again: Any particular set of crystals or life forms is extremely improbable as there are zillions to the zillionth power of possible ones but that improbability is not a rational argument against SOME life form set or crystal form forming by pure chance (not proof a "guiding ID" must exist).

------------------------
*In other words: Constantly inteferring with the very same natural laws, He presumably created, to violate them or "work tiny molecular level miracles" almost evey second of evey day.

**If you support the "god's plan POV", do you have any thoughts as to why he first made many other sets of life forms then killed them off? I.e. why not make man directly as told in the book of Genesis? Did he do this to leave their bones etc. just to trick the more intelligent life forms he eventually made?

 

[iceaura]

I was trying to have a civil discussion - I had honest questions and doubts about evolution.

I don't believe that - a comparison of your earlier statements with your later ones reveals that your introduction of yourself here was fundamentally dishonest.

It also reveals that you have no familiarity with the subject of Darwinian evolution - or thermodynamics, probability, self-organization and algorithmic processes, etc. These are wonderful and fascinating areas of human thought and discovery, and you should avail yourself of the opportunity you have, as a member of this culture and alive in this time, to learn about them.