Denial of evolution II

[GeoffP]

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,

Forgive me for butting in, Pteriax, but exactly how is it known that Genesis is written from God's perspective? You do request evidence on here for a variety of things - spidergoat in particular was good enough to treat with you fairly from the last posts I saw, but you blasted his posts immediately after as being "say-so". How is it known that Genesis is written from God's perspective, or that it indeed actually represents God's unmodified word?

Moreover, if you disagree with the ToE because of a handful of examples that have not changed, what do you say to the vastly greater number of lineages that have changed?

Best regards,

Geoff

 

[Pteriax]

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? "

I think evolution is not non existent. I also think that what people believe about evolution is overlooking some variables and making too many assumptions based on other theories and is generally inaccurate. So, no, I do not believe in the same evolution that you do - and I am starting to doubt the parts that I thought were factual. Does that make more sense?

 

[Pteriax]

Forgive me for butting in, Pteriax, but exactly how is it known that Genesis is written from God's perspective? You do request evidence on here for a variety of things - spidergoat in particular was good enough to treat with you fairly from the last posts I saw, but you blasted his posts immediately after as being "say-so". How is it known that Genesis is written from God's perspective, or that it indeed actually represents God's unmodified word?

In a literary sense the creation story is a narrative of God's actions from his perspective. Besides, I am not claiming that there is a mountain of proof that Genesis is the unmodified word of God. If I were, I would show you that proof. My whole point with this was to clarify my beliefs about when things were created for someone - not to provide proof.

Moreover, if you disagree with the ToE because of a handful of examples that have not changed, what do you say to the vastly greater number of lineages that have changed?

Best regards,

Geoff

I would say show me. How do you know they changed? How do you know to what degree they have changed? Maybe things look related for another reason. I'm just not sold on the one people have come up with.

 

[Pteriax]

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?

Not sure what you're getting at with the rant about me; I was discussing things with several people here. I think that life starting and life moving on are intrinsically related - that's my belief. I do not think there is any interfering in natural law going on. I think that people are wrong about the natural laws themselves. And no tricks either - it was necessary to prepare the earth for mankind - IMO. As for your particular crystallization argument, just because an improbable thing happens doesn't mean that it had to. Just because you can make odds for any particular thing happening just so does not mean it was not guided somehow. Like the bucket needing a chemist. No, the chemist did not control the shape and molecule count of each crystal, but he did set up the experiment. Am I saying God set everything in motion and left? Absolutely not, just dissecting your metaphor.

 

[Pteriax]

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.

Not sure this one deserves a reply, but...

I am sorry you don't understand what I'm getting at. If you did you would think my thought process odd perhaps, but not dishonest.

And I do have considerable familiarity with most of those subjects, particularly thermodynamics and probability / probability mechanics.

 

[iceaura]

And I do have considerable familiarity with most of those subjects, particularly thermodynamics and probability / probability mechanics.

You do not.

I don't think you realize just how ridiculous this set of statements is, for example:

Why do you think micro proves macro?
What about the thousands of non-existent intermediary species?
Why does dna contain information and where does that information come from?
What about the Laws of Thermodynamics, proven true a thousand times over?
Why are there species like sharks and crocs that haven't evolved for 65 million years?
- - -
I am sorry, but... the biosphere not a closed system?

Or this one, about Genesis "confirming" something in the physical sciences:

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.

These matters are not advanced, arcane, or sophisticated ones; they involve very basic and introductory concepts, and reveal your almost complete ignorance and unfamiliarity with the matters involved, as well as your fundamentalist Christian background.

Really, people have been quite patient with you here, and gratitude would be the appropriate response - if curiosity were your actual motive, and honest circumstance in posting here. Which, as I've mentioned, I don't believe for three seconds. Do you have any idea how many dozens of people like you show up on these forums, month after month, like Jehovah's Witnesses ringing doorbells and bringing their revelations in the guise of phony "questions"?

 

[Pteriax]

I know what my answers to the questions are. I know what the commonly accepted answers are as well. That I believe there is a different answer makes me dishonest? No. All your efforts to label me will fail, as I do not fit a stereotype. It would be easy then, because you could say he's y therefore x is true about him also. Example: you just inferred that I don't know about science because I am Christian - you went as far as to label me a fundamentalist. Why? Because I don't see the same thing you see when we look at data. Think for yourself a moment. Question that which calls itself correct or authoritative. See if that conclusion is really unbiased - a good way to tell if a report is unbiased is if that report lists hypotheticals that would disprove the contents of the report. Whatever you do, don't assume for a minute that I am like any others you have encountered here. Surely you must see the logical fallacy in trying to explain to the other guy that he is stupid rather than addressing the issue at hand. I am sorry your worldview is so limited that you see people who have a different perspective as unintelligent or as liars or whatever other box you try to fit them into - what a depressing thought.

 

[tamkinrules]

LOL!!! Seriously though, the whole reason that evolution is so accepted is because we HAVE found transitional fossils. We have found a turtle/tortoise fossil that has bones coming outside it that act as armor. Today the turtle has a shell. We've found dinosaur birds a.k.a. archeoptrix. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[iceaura]

Example: you just inferred that I don't know about science because I am Christian

No, I inferred that you don't "know about science" because you demonstrated on this thread that you have no idea what a thermodynamically open system is, you don't know what "proof" and evidence are in a scientific argument, you don't know what kinds of "intermediary species" are expected either in the fossil record or the extant biology according to evolutionary theory, you haven't the foggiest notion what "information" would be as applied to DNA or how it would come to be "contained" in a genome, and so forth.

These are basic, introductory concepts that a bright high school student would have acquired some familiarity with from a standard college prep curriculum. They are explained simply and thoroughly in many familiar and easily available venues such as talkorigins.com, if you missed them in high school. Or you could simply read the answers which more patient and competent people, such as Ophiolite and Billy T, have taken the time to supply you with here.

Your responses to these patient replies illustrate, btw, the most depressing feature of your type - you have missed several opportunities to engage knowledgeable people in interesting debate. Ophiolite, for example, has his own take on evolutionary theory, involving "group selection" and "punctuated equilibrium" and similar concepts that others here think are bogus for various reasons. Had you been paying attention to the answers, rather than maneuvering for furtherance of your real agenda, you might have stimulated an actual discussion and learned something.

All your efforts to label me will fail, as I do not fit a stereotype.

You fit completely, perfectly, without a single aberrant feature, one of the most common stereotypes on this forum - the phony "questioner" from the creationist propaganda mills. Good luck with your "questions", as you call them, and don't let the door hit you in ass on your way out.

 

[Zeno]

LOL!!! Seriously though, the whole reason that evolution is so accepted is because we HAVE found transitional fossils. We have found a turtle/tortoise fossil that has bones coming outside it that act as armor. Today the turtle has a shell. We've found dinosaur birds a.k.a. archeoptrix. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Then why the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium'?

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

This is an argument from incredulity. Just because you are unable to imagine the plausibility of this is no reason to reject it.
We can identify genes responsible for eye colour. We can note the differences between them. The necessary mutations are not at all challenging.

You are correct it is an argument from incredulity. We don't see people who don't have blue eyes and are not carrying the recessive gene for it suddenly giving birth to people with blue eyes. In a similar vein, we don't see Chinese or Japanese people suddenly giving birth to blond-haired, blue-eyed people.

 

[Pteriax]

You are still avoiding the questions, iceaura. And missing about 90% of the point of each of my posts. Saying everyone knows is a logical fallacy and therefore not a valid argument - likewise with telling me to visit a highly biased website (I have been there). Any answers I have gotten thus far are either lacking data to back them up, or haven't yet been discussed in depth enough. I'm still not sure what agenda you think I have, but yours is clearly NOT to discuss the topic.

 

[Pteriax]

LOL!!! Seriously though, the whole reason that evolution is so accepted is because we HAVE found transitional fossils. We have found a turtle/tortoise fossil that has bones coming outside it that act as armor. Today the turtle has a shell. We've found dinosaur birds a.k.a. archeoptrix. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yes, that's right.... or so it would seem on the surface. I'm not sure about the turtle but the "dinosaur birds" as you call them, are only found in one county in Germany - and then in incredibly tiny amounts. But I do see what you are getting at. Things look alike so they must be intrinsically related. I would disagree with that sentiment.

 

[iceaura]

Saying everyone knows is a logical fallacy and therefore not a valid argument

I didn't say everyone knows. I said you don't. And that is giving you the benefit of the doubt - it is quite possible that you do know why evolutionary theory contradicts none of the laws of thermodynamics, in which case your "questions" reveal not understandable ignorance but but much less easily forgiven character flaws.

You are still avoiding the questions, iceaura.

All your actual questions have been answered, as if they were honest*. Your pretense of having any interest in those answers is no longer operational, as they say - your responses to the answers reveal your actual agenda here, which is stereotypical creationist trolling.

*For example, this one:

Why do you think micro proves macro?

Which was answered immediately as follows:

I don't think it does. The current paradigm in scientific methodology and one that has served us effectively for some time is that we can disprove, we can never prove. - -

What micro-evolution does do is offer a plausible mechanism for achieving macro evolutionary steps over a sufficiently long period.

Earning this bit of pretend misunderstanding and maneuvering for the agenda:

Okay, micro does not prove macro. And you seem to be saying that it's a good idea and people are working on it. Fair enough.

 

[Pteriax]

Still wrong. I bet it's because you are still using the same assumptions. Example: you still try to fit me into a stereotype for some reason. My actual agenda is to discuss evolution, not defend my motives for wanting to discuss evolution, which is clearly all you want to do. Nitpicking my posts and avoiding the actual subject (as you are doing) is characteristic of another very negative stereotype that you may fit; just in case you were operating under the delusion that you are better than the rest of us.

 

[iceaura]

Example: you still try to fit me into a stereotype for some reason. My actual agenda is to discuss evolution,

You exemplify the stereotypical creationist troll perfectly, and you have no interest in discussing evolutionary theory - you have refused several opportunities to join an actual discussion on this thread alone.

 

[Ophiolite]

So, no, I do not believe in the same evolution that you do - and I am starting to doubt the parts that I thought were factual. Does that make more sense?

Yes it does. Thank you.

I am sorry your (iceaura's) worldview is so limited that you see people who have a different perspective as unintelligent or as liars or whatever other box you try to fit them into - what a depressing thought.

Pteriax, since we do wish to focus on the issues and not the personalities let me make these observations and ask that you give them some consideration.

If you had been on the forum as long as I have you would recognise Iceaura as one of most intelligent, knowledgeable, thoughtful and unbiased individuals here. His 'attack' on you represents, I suspect, frustration and exasperation at the appearance of 'yet another creationist' with the same tired, ignorant arguments. You say he has misjudged you, but I understand fully his suspicions. I am giving you the full benefit of the doubt - doubts that relate to predecessors, not to you - iceaura has decided not to.

Why do I even mention this? iceaura will make several pertinent points in the ongoing discussion. Please do not ignore, or discount these because of his current perception of your motives.

Iceaura, just for the hell of it, let's pretend Pteriax is what he says he is and respond accordingly. Either it will work, or it will make the "I told you so" moment so much more satisfying.

Finally, Pteriax, are you now satisfied in relation to your question on thermodynamics? If not what leaves you uneasy? Please be detailed.

 

[Gustav]

.......you are better than the rest of us.

welcome to sci
just ignore opi and ice
they are well known devil worshippers around these parts and have to be known to lead those of a scientific bent, (you, i and many others) astray with their devious and cunning words and ways

 

[Pteriax]

Why do I even mention this? iceaura will make several pertinent points in the ongoing discussion. Please do not ignore, or discount these because of his current perception of your motives.

Very well.

Pteriax, are you now satisfied in relation to your question on thermodynamics? If not what leaves you uneasy? Please be detailed.

Okay, I see that the planet is not a closed system, as it is influenced by various external forces. The solar system must therefore also be an open system from what I know of astrophysics and astronomy. The next step up is the galaxy - I know it is influenced by gravity from other galaxies in its movement in the universe (hence galactic clusters etc.) I am not sure how far that influence goes. But what if we go even higher, to the universe itself? Would that be considered a closed system? I personally think it is a closed system, free of external influences. Follow it back down to earth and you find that not only on earth but throughout the universe order comes from chaos rather than the inverse. So my point is that whatever influenced the order in the universe has done the same in the galaxy, the solar system, and even on earth; because affecting one has the trickle down effect on each of the others. Since the first law of thermodynamics states that there is a constant sum total of matter and energy in the universe; the second states that without matter or energy input, everything in a closed system becomes less and less orderly over time. Despite these laws, billions of years after the universe was formed, life began on earth. Then that life became more ordered, less chaotic, less random. I don't believe that is possible through naturalistic means. Based on the laws of thermodynamics, random cannot improve anything - that is the bottom line for me.

 

[Gustav]

/inhales deeply

nice!
a breath of fresh science!

 

[D H]

Since the first law of thermodynamics states that there is a constant sum total of matter and energy in the universe; the second states that without matter or energy input, everything in a closed system becomes less and less orderly over time.

That is a misrepresentation of thermodynamics and is an invalid conclusion. The second law of thermodynamics simply states that the total entropy of a closed system increases over time. This does not mean that the entropy of every part of the system must increase over time, which is what you erroneously concluded. In particular, the second law does not preclude some parts of an overall system becoming more orderly (a decrease entropy) so long as the system as a whole is increasing in energy.

Think of it this way: It is approaching summer in the Northern hemisphere. People who live there will soon be turning your air conditioners on. Air conditioners decrease the entropy in a house at the expense of increased entropy outdoors.