Questions for Atheists (Refresher Thread)
- Thread starter Ekimklaw
- Start date
Mike:
Thanks.
I consider the things I've cited to be empirical.
I don't think more evidence of Jesus' existance exists, but I do think that Jesus did exist. Vinnie (ilgwarmh) convinced me.
But this does not mean that Jesus was either God, the Son of God (bloody trinity!) or anything more than a human.
Please re-read my link. Your understanding of the theory is flawed. No offense.
It is believed that organisms gradually seperated into gender, before they did they reproduced by conjugation (sp?) and asexual reproduction.
There is a good evolutionary reason for sexual mutation, namely, increasing genetic diversity. Again, my link touches on that.
Thanks.
I consider the things I've cited to be empirical.
I don't think more evidence of Jesus' existance exists, but I do think that Jesus did exist. Vinnie (ilgwarmh) convinced me.
But this does not mean that Jesus was either God, the Son of God (bloody trinity!) or anything more than a human.
Please re-read my link. Your understanding of the theory is flawed. No offense.
It is believed that organisms gradually seperated into gender, before they did they reproduced by conjugation (sp?) and asexual reproduction.
There is a good evolutionary reason for sexual mutation, namely, increasing genetic diversity. Again, my link touches on that.
"answer: We are sure Socrates existed because of the testimony of eyewitnesses to his life and teachings. There is NO empirical evidence for his existence. We can use this realization to understand that much MORE evidence exists that Jesus lived. But many claim he is fictional. The point here? Not everything we know is true can be backed up with empirical evidence"
There's a distinct difference, though. Socrates' life (as well as pretty much any other historical figure you throw up) was recorded during his life by others not connected to him and not all within one giant book that is about him. Jesus' existence was not discussed by ANYONE outside the Bible until after he was dead by a man who had never met him and had been a youngin' or not alive while Jesus lived.
Still, I do believe a man named Jesus probably existed. If not only for the reason that it's highly improbable that the whole stories could have began from absolutely no one.
There's a distinct difference, though. Socrates' life (as well as pretty much any other historical figure you throw up) was recorded during his life by others not connected to him and not all within one giant book that is about him. Jesus' existence was not discussed by ANYONE outside the Bible until after he was dead by a man who had never met him and had been a youngin' or not alive while Jesus lived.
Still, I do believe a man named Jesus probably existed. If not only for the reason that it's highly improbable that the whole stories could have began from absolutely no one.
Xev, Tyler,
Re: Existence of Jesus.
Please read Acharya S and The Christ Conspiracy. Or easier still read tiassa's recent post to Viniie in the 'James the Brother of Jesus' thread.
Of all the volumes of historical writings produced 2000 years ago there are but only a few small paragraphs that allude to a Jesus Christ and even they are highly questionable.
For potentially the most important being in the history of mankind to have not had any reliable historical references is simply not credible.
The volume of writings that have been written since his alleged existence appear to be entirely based on mythology or are mythology.
It seems highly unlikely he ever existed.
Cris
Re: Existence of Jesus.
Please read Acharya S and The Christ Conspiracy. Or easier still read tiassa's recent post to Viniie in the 'James the Brother of Jesus' thread.
Of all the volumes of historical writings produced 2000 years ago there are but only a few small paragraphs that allude to a Jesus Christ and even they are highly questionable.
For potentially the most important being in the history of mankind to have not had any reliable historical references is simply not credible.
The volume of writings that have been written since his alleged existence appear to be entirely based on mythology or are mythology.
It seems highly unlikely he ever existed.
Cris
Ekimklaw:
<i>answer: I believe the universe had a beginning and that it was created by God for his purpose sometime in the distant past. I am NOT opposed to the "Big Bang Theory". Cuz God caused the "Bang".</i>
Fair enough. That's consistent with science, so far.
<i>answer: I believe matter was created by God. Since a void cannot independently cause something to exist, I believe God created matter. To my mind it is the best hypothosis.</i>
So, do you believe in many separate acts of creation, or just one? Because if God created the big bang, as you say, there was no need for him to stick around to create matter separately. The big bang theory describes the creation of matter without the need for God.
<i>answer: We are sure Socrates existed because of the testimony of eyewitnesses to his life and teachings.</i>
That does not add up to a certainty. That is merely supporting evidence. There's a difference.
<i>There is NO empirical evidence for his existence.</i>
Sure there is. The writings of Plato, for instance.
The evidence for Jesus, I think, is probably of about the same weight as the evidence for Socrates, by the way. We can't be certain Jesus existed, but it seems likely that somebody with at least some of his characteristics existed. Jeshua, of course, was a very common name.
<i>[All organs of the body] came into being simultaneously. There is no way that any part could exist without the other.</i>
That's true for our modern organs, but not true in the early stages of evolution. It's like saying that a Boeing 747 must have been constructed all at once, since all its parts are interdependent. Obviously, different parts of the aircraft were built at different time, and the aircraft as a whole "evolved" from earlier, simpler aircraft.
<i>At some point in the evolutionary process if we go backwards in time, we come to a place where life did not exist. Moving forward in time we are told it "evolved". Specifically how?</i>
By random change and natural selection.
Or are you asking about abiogenesis here?
<i>What did this early form of life use to breath? To digest food? To think? To See?</i>
Lungs, stomachs, brains and eyes came a fair way down the evolutionary track. The first forms of life had none of those, and many existing forms of life still lack them.
<i>answer: I agree micro-evolution exists. We always worry about the origins of man, I was just curious about Insect evolution.</i>
You haven't read much real science on this, have you? I've already talked about the term "micro-evolution". Try reading something other than Creationist literature. There is an entire scientific field of study called <b>entomology</b> which is dedicated to the study of insects and their evolution.
<i>answer: [Sexual reproduction] could not have. Two organisms evolving independently of each other, yet at the same time codependent on each other is flawed in the extreme.</i>
Do you know that some flowers cannot reproduce without the help of bees? The flowers and the bees evolved quite independently. One is a plant, the other an animal. Yet, they are codependent. Examples like this abound in nature. Look up the word <b>ecosystem</b> in your dictionary.
<i>If they procreated asexually, there would be no need for sexual reproduction, and therefore no evolution toward that.</i>
Evolution doesn't work on the basis of "need". It is partly a random process.
<i>Once again it is clear. Just like the organs, and the eye, males and females were "ready made".</i>
There are many good sites on the web explaining the evolution of the eye. Please make an effort to read at least one of them before making silly comments like this.
<i>answer: I believe the universe had a beginning and that it was created by God for his purpose sometime in the distant past. I am NOT opposed to the "Big Bang Theory". Cuz God caused the "Bang".</i>
Fair enough. That's consistent with science, so far.
<i>answer: I believe matter was created by God. Since a void cannot independently cause something to exist, I believe God created matter. To my mind it is the best hypothosis.</i>
So, do you believe in many separate acts of creation, or just one? Because if God created the big bang, as you say, there was no need for him to stick around to create matter separately. The big bang theory describes the creation of matter without the need for God.
<i>answer: We are sure Socrates existed because of the testimony of eyewitnesses to his life and teachings.</i>
That does not add up to a certainty. That is merely supporting evidence. There's a difference.
<i>There is NO empirical evidence for his existence.</i>
Sure there is. The writings of Plato, for instance.
The evidence for Jesus, I think, is probably of about the same weight as the evidence for Socrates, by the way. We can't be certain Jesus existed, but it seems likely that somebody with at least some of his characteristics existed. Jeshua, of course, was a very common name.
<i>[All organs of the body] came into being simultaneously. There is no way that any part could exist without the other.</i>
That's true for our modern organs, but not true in the early stages of evolution. It's like saying that a Boeing 747 must have been constructed all at once, since all its parts are interdependent. Obviously, different parts of the aircraft were built at different time, and the aircraft as a whole "evolved" from earlier, simpler aircraft.
<i>At some point in the evolutionary process if we go backwards in time, we come to a place where life did not exist. Moving forward in time we are told it "evolved". Specifically how?</i>
By random change and natural selection.
Or are you asking about abiogenesis here?
<i>What did this early form of life use to breath? To digest food? To think? To See?</i>
Lungs, stomachs, brains and eyes came a fair way down the evolutionary track. The first forms of life had none of those, and many existing forms of life still lack them.
<i>answer: I agree micro-evolution exists. We always worry about the origins of man, I was just curious about Insect evolution.</i>
You haven't read much real science on this, have you? I've already talked about the term "micro-evolution". Try reading something other than Creationist literature. There is an entire scientific field of study called <b>entomology</b> which is dedicated to the study of insects and their evolution.
<i>answer: [Sexual reproduction] could not have. Two organisms evolving independently of each other, yet at the same time codependent on each other is flawed in the extreme.</i>
Do you know that some flowers cannot reproduce without the help of bees? The flowers and the bees evolved quite independently. One is a plant, the other an animal. Yet, they are codependent. Examples like this abound in nature. Look up the word <b>ecosystem</b> in your dictionary.
<i>If they procreated asexually, there would be no need for sexual reproduction, and therefore no evolution toward that.</i>
Evolution doesn't work on the basis of "need". It is partly a random process.
<i>Once again it is clear. Just like the organs, and the eye, males and females were "ready made".</i>
There are many good sites on the web explaining the evolution of the eye. Please make an effort to read at least one of them before making silly comments like this.
==============================================
James R wrote:
So, do you believe in many separate acts of creation, or just one?
==============================================
I believe in 18 acts of creation. Or is it 12?
==============================================
James R wrote:
Because if God created the big bang, as you say, there was no need for him to stick around to create matter separately. The big bang theory describes the creation of matter without the need for God.
==============================================
Okay.
==============================================
James R wrote:
That does not add up to a certainty. That is merely supporting evidence. There's a difference.
==============================================
My point exactly.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Sure there is [empirical evidence for Socrates' existence]. The writings of Plato, for instance.
==============================================
My point exactly.
==============================================
James R wrote:
The evidence for Jesus, I think, is probably of about the same weight as the evidence for Socrates, by the way.
==============================================
My point exactly.
==============================================
James R wrote:
We can't be certain Jesus existed, but it seems likely that somebody with at least some of his characteristics existed. Jeshua, of course, was a very common name.
==============================================
My point exact... oh. Wait. No I disagree.
==============================================
James R wrote:
[Saying that all the organs existed at once is] like saying that a Boeing 747 must have been constructed all at once, since all its parts are interdependent.
==============================================
Last time I checked a 747 didn't have a central nervous system or a brain.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Obviously, different parts of the aircraft were built at different time, and the aircraft as a whole "evolved" from earlier, simpler aircraft.
==============================================
Your correlation between humans and 747's is flawed in the extreme. I think you must realize this. In short 747's are NOT ALIVE.
Flawed as it is though, let's use your anology.
What if when engineers were building the first plane, it was necessary to fly to other parts of the world to have built what it needed to fly?
==============================================
James R. wrote:
By random change and natural selection.
Or are you asking about abiogenesis here?
==============================================
Ahh the wonderful safety of vagueness. Without getting into specifics (which would gut their theories) evolutionists breeze over complications with the comfy phrases "random change", "unlimited time", and "natural selection". Belief in these notions takes almost Christ-like faith.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Lungs, stomachs, brains and eyes came a fair way down the evolutionary track. The first forms of life had none of those...
==============================================
So what did they eat? How did they survive for billions of years? Where is the evidence? Or do you just have faith that it must have happened this way? After all the Biology professor in college said so.
==============================================
James R wrote:
...and many existing forms of life still lack [lungs, stomachs, and brains].
==============================================
Maybe some kinds of fish, or plankton. But humans (and all other mammals) must have them to live.
Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.
==============================================
James R wrote:
You haven't read much real science on this, have you? I've already talked about the term "micro-evolution".
==============================================
Man you hate that term don't you? Well, "micro-evolution" simply means "diversification of species". This idea can be found in Darwin's work called "The Origin of Species". Try not to let little things like terminology get under your skin. If you prefer I could say "limited evolution"? Irregardless...
micro-evolution = diversification within a species (real)
macro-evolution = evolution that creates a new species (fantasy)
Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.
So instead of "micro-evolution" I'll say "limited evolution" and for "macro-evolution" I'll say "complex evolution"
==============================================
James R wrote:
Try reading something other than Creationist literature.
==============================================
I studied Darwin's "Origin of Species", and Huxley's "Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature". I also read "Human Origins" by Clark Spencer Larsen, among others. In addition to that, I also took 20 hours of biology in college.
==============================================
James R wrote:
There is an entire scientific field of study called <b>entomology</b> which is dedicated to the study of insects and their evolution.
==============================================
Too boring. Plus, I hate bugs.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Do you know that some flowers cannot reproduce without the help of bees? The flowers and the bees evolved quite independently.
==============================================
Are you claiming here that early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method? What evidence do you have for that? Or is it another leap of faith?
==============================================
James R wrote:
One is a plant, the other an animal. Yet, they are codependent.
==============================================
Yeah James, thanks. I know the difference between a plant and an insect (bees = insects). I also know that symbiotic relationships has nothing to do with "complex evolution". Yours is a classic "straw man" argument.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Evolution doesn't work on the basis of "need". It is partly a random process.
==============================================
So are you forming a new evolutionary sect? Since when does evolution NOT work by process of need? Ahh blessed randomness. Can you cite any example where randomness produced order?
==============================================
James R wrote:
There are many good sites on the web explaining the evolution of the eye. Please make an effort to read at least one of them before making silly comments like this.
==============================================
Gee. You could have summarized the voluminous conclusive evidence for me so I don't have to spend another 2 hours reading pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about "chance" and "mutations" and "billions and billions of years".
-Mike
James R wrote:
So, do you believe in many separate acts of creation, or just one?
==============================================
I believe in 18 acts of creation. Or is it 12?
==============================================
James R wrote:
Because if God created the big bang, as you say, there was no need for him to stick around to create matter separately. The big bang theory describes the creation of matter without the need for God.
==============================================
Okay.
==============================================
James R wrote:
That does not add up to a certainty. That is merely supporting evidence. There's a difference.
==============================================
My point exactly.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Sure there is [empirical evidence for Socrates' existence]. The writings of Plato, for instance.
==============================================
My point exactly.
==============================================
James R wrote:
The evidence for Jesus, I think, is probably of about the same weight as the evidence for Socrates, by the way.
==============================================
My point exactly.
==============================================
James R wrote:
We can't be certain Jesus existed, but it seems likely that somebody with at least some of his characteristics existed. Jeshua, of course, was a very common name.
==============================================
My point exact... oh. Wait. No I disagree.
==============================================
James R wrote:
[Saying that all the organs existed at once is] like saying that a Boeing 747 must have been constructed all at once, since all its parts are interdependent.
==============================================
Last time I checked a 747 didn't have a central nervous system or a brain.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Obviously, different parts of the aircraft were built at different time, and the aircraft as a whole "evolved" from earlier, simpler aircraft.
==============================================
Your correlation between humans and 747's is flawed in the extreme. I think you must realize this. In short 747's are NOT ALIVE.
Flawed as it is though, let's use your anology.
What if when engineers were building the first plane, it was necessary to fly to other parts of the world to have built what it needed to fly?
==============================================
James R. wrote:
By random change and natural selection.
Or are you asking about abiogenesis here?
==============================================
Ahh the wonderful safety of vagueness. Without getting into specifics (which would gut their theories) evolutionists breeze over complications with the comfy phrases "random change", "unlimited time", and "natural selection". Belief in these notions takes almost Christ-like faith.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Lungs, stomachs, brains and eyes came a fair way down the evolutionary track. The first forms of life had none of those...
==============================================
So what did they eat? How did they survive for billions of years? Where is the evidence? Or do you just have faith that it must have happened this way? After all the Biology professor in college said so.
==============================================
James R wrote:
...and many existing forms of life still lack [lungs, stomachs, and brains].
==============================================
Maybe some kinds of fish, or plankton. But humans (and all other mammals) must have them to live.
Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.
==============================================
James R wrote:
You haven't read much real science on this, have you? I've already talked about the term "micro-evolution".
==============================================
Man you hate that term don't you? Well, "micro-evolution" simply means "diversification of species". This idea can be found in Darwin's work called "The Origin of Species". Try not to let little things like terminology get under your skin. If you prefer I could say "limited evolution"? Irregardless...
micro-evolution = diversification within a species (real)
macro-evolution = evolution that creates a new species (fantasy)
Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.
So instead of "micro-evolution" I'll say "limited evolution" and for "macro-evolution" I'll say "complex evolution"
==============================================
James R wrote:
Try reading something other than Creationist literature.
==============================================
I studied Darwin's "Origin of Species", and Huxley's "Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature". I also read "Human Origins" by Clark Spencer Larsen, among others. In addition to that, I also took 20 hours of biology in college.
==============================================
James R wrote:
There is an entire scientific field of study called <b>entomology</b> which is dedicated to the study of insects and their evolution.
==============================================
Too boring. Plus, I hate bugs.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Do you know that some flowers cannot reproduce without the help of bees? The flowers and the bees evolved quite independently.
==============================================
Are you claiming here that early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method? What evidence do you have for that? Or is it another leap of faith?
==============================================
James R wrote:
One is a plant, the other an animal. Yet, they are codependent.
==============================================
Yeah James, thanks. I know the difference between a plant and an insect (bees = insects). I also know that symbiotic relationships has nothing to do with "complex evolution". Yours is a classic "straw man" argument.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Evolution doesn't work on the basis of "need". It is partly a random process.
==============================================
So are you forming a new evolutionary sect? Since when does evolution NOT work by process of need? Ahh blessed randomness. Can you cite any example where randomness produced order?
==============================================
James R wrote:
There are many good sites on the web explaining the evolution of the eye. Please make an effort to read at least one of them before making silly comments like this.
==============================================
Gee. You could have summarized the voluminous conclusive evidence for me so I don't have to spend another 2 hours reading pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about "chance" and "mutations" and "billions and billions of years".
-Mike
In response to Ekimlaw's answers to his own questions
#1
If I were to define the universe as anything in existance(including God) would you agree that the universe has existed for infinity? If yes(which I assume you will) explain the necessity for God when it's just as(if not more plausible) that energy(particles, etc. see other's posts) is the infinite element in this equation.
#2
Why must there have ever been a void? It is more logical to assume that a true void has never existed.
#3
Athenian court records. I am fairly sure they kept them and that they are in existance somewhere. Though I have not sought for their current location, a museum or university is most likely. I personally think Jesus existed, though I haven't fully looked into the theories denying his existance I find a conspiracy that large to be improbable. He was not, however, any sort of supernatural being. He was human, he was crucified, or at least so we've been led to believe, and he died. The end.
#4
Living organisms need not have organs, look at single celled organisms, they exist. Bacteria for instance. Virii and others also fall into this category, I believe. They have no organs, they don't need to breathe...
#5
It seems here you have seen the error of your beliefs on this one matter. Further education may assist you in other areas as well.
#6
skipped
#7
Education is the cure for ignorance and false beliefs. As always.
#8
I see nothing wrong with overdoze's explanation here or Xen's link, and the fact that you so easily denounce both just goes to show you how blinding one can be to reason when one is protecting a long held belief. What many have been trying to say is that sexual reproduction did not start with humans, it was already in place with our ancestors, and our ancestors achieved it exactly as has been explained. In short yes "early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method? " If you go back far enough and take the term human to mean all ancestors of the human species, humans were asexual at one point!
#9
I also see nothing wrong with the explanation found when following Raithere's link. Again the blinding of reason...
#10
For ten I shall postulate my own answer.
Harm no other physically or psychologically. Simple is usually best.
#1
If I were to define the universe as anything in existance(including God) would you agree that the universe has existed for infinity? If yes(which I assume you will) explain the necessity for God when it's just as(if not more plausible) that energy(particles, etc. see other's posts) is the infinite element in this equation.
#2
Why must there have ever been a void? It is more logical to assume that a true void has never existed.
#3
Athenian court records. I am fairly sure they kept them and that they are in existance somewhere. Though I have not sought for their current location, a museum or university is most likely. I personally think Jesus existed, though I haven't fully looked into the theories denying his existance I find a conspiracy that large to be improbable. He was not, however, any sort of supernatural being. He was human, he was crucified, or at least so we've been led to believe, and he died. The end.
#4
Living organisms need not have organs, look at single celled organisms, they exist. Bacteria for instance. Virii and others also fall into this category, I believe. They have no organs, they don't need to breathe...
#5
It seems here you have seen the error of your beliefs on this one matter. Further education may assist you in other areas as well.
#6
skipped
#7
Education is the cure for ignorance and false beliefs. As always.
#8
I see nothing wrong with overdoze's explanation here or Xen's link, and the fact that you so easily denounce both just goes to show you how blinding one can be to reason when one is protecting a long held belief. What many have been trying to say is that sexual reproduction did not start with humans, it was already in place with our ancestors, and our ancestors achieved it exactly as has been explained. In short yes "early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method? " If you go back far enough and take the term human to mean all ancestors of the human species, humans were asexual at one point!
#9
I also see nothing wrong with the explanation found when following Raithere's link. Again the blinding of reason...
#10
For ten I shall postulate my own answer.
Harm no other physically or psychologically. Simple is usually best.
Welcome Angelus!
Mike:
Let us know when you decide.
Using this flawed analogy, which is getting weird.....they had ships and trains and all.
They were prokaryotes, likely. You ask what they ate or how they ate without stomachs?
They probably "ate" whatever material was in the primordial ocean. And prokaryotes don't need stomachs to digest stuff.
Fossil evidence is lacking, but it does exist in enough number to make this a credible theory.
*In excited little boy voice*
Bugs are cool, mister.
Out of curiousity, why do you accept microevolution but not macroevolution? Isn't that a bit like saying that you accept that cars have motors, but you don't believe that they are powered by their motors?
Mike:
Let us know when you decide.
Using this flawed analogy, which is getting weird.....they had ships and trains and all.
They were prokaryotes, likely. You ask what they ate or how they ate without stomachs?
They probably "ate" whatever material was in the primordial ocean. And prokaryotes don't need stomachs to digest stuff.
Fossil evidence is lacking, but it does exist in enough number to make this a credible theory.
*In excited little boy voice*
Bugs are cool, mister.
Out of curiousity, why do you accept microevolution but not macroevolution? Isn't that a bit like saying that you accept that cars have motors, but you don't believe that they are powered by their motors?
Mike,
My responses were direct responses to your comments. Yet your reponses are side-tracks. Why? Are you afraid to tackle the issues head-on?
<i>I believe in 18 acts of creation. Or is it 12?</i>
Fair enough. Seems like a bit of a disorganised God you have there.
<i>Last time I checked a 747 didn't have a central nervous system or a brain.</i>
Yes it does - of a sort. It has many onboard computers and miles of electrical wiring.
<i>Your correlation between humans and 747's is flawed in the extreme. I think you must realize this. In short 747's are NOT ALIVE.</i>
No? What is needed for something to be "alive"? Please define the term "life" or "alive" for me.
<i>What if when engineers were building the first plane, it was necessary to fly to other parts of the world to have built what it needed to fly?</i>
It wasn't. As Xev pointed out, there were other more primitive forms of transport available. Just as in the case of evolution more complex life evolved from simpler life.
<i>Ahh the wonderful safety of vagueness.</i>
Haven't you heard the term "abiogenesis"?
<i>Without getting into specifics (which would gut their theories) evolutionists breeze over complications with the comfy phrases "random change", "unlimited time", and "natural selection".</i>
Do they? Please provide some examples.
<i>So what did [early forms of life] eat?</i>
Each other, mainly.
<i>How did they survive for billions of years?</i>
Individuals did not. Species did.
<i>Where is the evidence?</i>
Some of them are still around today. We can check their genetic code. In other cases, there is fossil evidence.
<i>Or do you just have faith that it must have happened this way?</i>
No faith required. This is science.
<i>Maybe some kinds of fish, or plankton [lack lungs etc..]. But humans (and all other mammals) must have them to live.</i>
Yes, I agree.
<i>Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.</i>
You'll have to provide some evidence to back that up, I'm afraid. Otherwise, it's just your unsupported opinion. You're entitled to it, but it doesn't actually count for much.
<i>Man you hate that term don't you?</i>
Micro-evolution? No, I don't hate it. It just displays a total incomprehension of evolution, that's all. It's the latest in a long line of Creationist fall-back positions. Having failed to prove their case, Creationists are trying to move the goal posts (again).
<i>This idea can be found in Darwin's work called "The Origin of Species".</i>
Please provide a reference to where Darwin uses the term "microevolution" in "The Origin of Species".
<i>Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.</i>
You really haven't thought this out for yourself, have you? I assume you've been reading "Answers in Genesis" or some such publication. Your language is their language.
<i>I studied Darwin's "Origin of Species", and Huxley's "Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature". I also read "Human Origins" by Clark Spencer Larsen, among others. In addition to that, I also took 20 hours of biology in college.</i>
Read anything recent?
<i>Too boring. Plus, I hate bugs.</i>
I can't help it if you won't educate yourself. Why claim that nothing is known of insect evolution if you don't know anything about it? Seems strange to me.
<i>Are you claiming here that early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method?</i>
This is a side-track. You said that no two organisms could be interdependent yet evolve separately. I gave you a counter-example. That disproves your statement.
<i>I also know that symbiotic relationships has nothing to do with "complex evolution". Yours is a classic "straw man" argument.</i>
What, you mean like your straw man that I am claiming that humans reproduced by polination? What's that, Kettle? You're calling the pot black? Hmm....
<i>So are you forming a new evolutionary sect? Since when does evolution NOT work by process of need? Ahh blessed randomness. Can you cite any example where randomness produced order?</i>
No, I'm not forming a new sect. This is standard evolution, Mike. Read up and you might eventually understand it. Evolution <b>never</b> works by "need". It works by natural selection working on variation between organisms. This is very basic stuff.
Where does randomness produce order? Alone, randomness doesn't amount to much. Creationists always conveniently forget that evolution is not a random process. They always leave out natural selection - a very important piece of the jigsaw. That is the ultimate straw man.
<i>Gee. You could have summarized the voluminous conclusive evidence for me so I don't have to spend another 2 hours reading pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about "chance" and "mutations" and "billions and billions of years".</i>
Regarding the eye? Yes, I could summarise the eye's evolution for you, but would it really be worth taking the time? Also, other places do it more conclusively that I could here, and with pretty pictures as well. You can find descriptions in many different books. There are countless internet sites on this. Do you know how to work a search engine, Mike, or would you like me to point you to one site, perhaps? I'll do it if you ask nicely...
My responses were direct responses to your comments. Yet your reponses are side-tracks. Why? Are you afraid to tackle the issues head-on?
<i>I believe in 18 acts of creation. Or is it 12?</i>
Fair enough. Seems like a bit of a disorganised God you have there.
<i>Last time I checked a 747 didn't have a central nervous system or a brain.</i>
Yes it does - of a sort. It has many onboard computers and miles of electrical wiring.
<i>Your correlation between humans and 747's is flawed in the extreme. I think you must realize this. In short 747's are NOT ALIVE.</i>
No? What is needed for something to be "alive"? Please define the term "life" or "alive" for me.
<i>What if when engineers were building the first plane, it was necessary to fly to other parts of the world to have built what it needed to fly?</i>
It wasn't. As Xev pointed out, there were other more primitive forms of transport available. Just as in the case of evolution more complex life evolved from simpler life.
<i>Ahh the wonderful safety of vagueness.</i>
Haven't you heard the term "abiogenesis"?
<i>Without getting into specifics (which would gut their theories) evolutionists breeze over complications with the comfy phrases "random change", "unlimited time", and "natural selection".</i>
Do they? Please provide some examples.
<i>So what did [early forms of life] eat?</i>
Each other, mainly.
<i>How did they survive for billions of years?</i>
Individuals did not. Species did.
<i>Where is the evidence?</i>
Some of them are still around today. We can check their genetic code. In other cases, there is fossil evidence.
<i>Or do you just have faith that it must have happened this way?</i>
No faith required. This is science.
<i>Maybe some kinds of fish, or plankton [lack lungs etc..]. But humans (and all other mammals) must have them to live.</i>
Yes, I agree.
<i>Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.</i>
You'll have to provide some evidence to back that up, I'm afraid. Otherwise, it's just your unsupported opinion. You're entitled to it, but it doesn't actually count for much.
<i>Man you hate that term don't you?</i>
Micro-evolution? No, I don't hate it. It just displays a total incomprehension of evolution, that's all. It's the latest in a long line of Creationist fall-back positions. Having failed to prove their case, Creationists are trying to move the goal posts (again).
<i>This idea can be found in Darwin's work called "The Origin of Species".</i>
Please provide a reference to where Darwin uses the term "microevolution" in "The Origin of Species".
<i>Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.</i>
You really haven't thought this out for yourself, have you? I assume you've been reading "Answers in Genesis" or some such publication. Your language is their language.
<i>I studied Darwin's "Origin of Species", and Huxley's "Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature". I also read "Human Origins" by Clark Spencer Larsen, among others. In addition to that, I also took 20 hours of biology in college.</i>
Read anything recent?
<i>Too boring. Plus, I hate bugs.</i>
I can't help it if you won't educate yourself. Why claim that nothing is known of insect evolution if you don't know anything about it? Seems strange to me.
<i>Are you claiming here that early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method?</i>
This is a side-track. You said that no two organisms could be interdependent yet evolve separately. I gave you a counter-example. That disproves your statement.
<i>I also know that symbiotic relationships has nothing to do with "complex evolution". Yours is a classic "straw man" argument.</i>
What, you mean like your straw man that I am claiming that humans reproduced by polination? What's that, Kettle? You're calling the pot black? Hmm....
<i>So are you forming a new evolutionary sect? Since when does evolution NOT work by process of need? Ahh blessed randomness. Can you cite any example where randomness produced order?</i>
No, I'm not forming a new sect. This is standard evolution, Mike. Read up and you might eventually understand it. Evolution <b>never</b> works by "need". It works by natural selection working on variation between organisms. This is very basic stuff.
Where does randomness produce order? Alone, randomness doesn't amount to much. Creationists always conveniently forget that evolution is not a random process. They always leave out natural selection - a very important piece of the jigsaw. That is the ultimate straw man.
<i>Gee. You could have summarized the voluminous conclusive evidence for me so I don't have to spend another 2 hours reading pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about "chance" and "mutations" and "billions and billions of years".</i>
Regarding the eye? Yes, I could summarise the eye's evolution for you, but would it really be worth taking the time? Also, other places do it more conclusively that I could here, and with pretty pictures as well. You can find descriptions in many different books. There are countless internet sites on this. Do you know how to work a search engine, Mike, or would you like me to point you to one site, perhaps? I'll do it if you ask nicely...
(most responses edited out by the author... everyone else pretty well answered them already... commentary left in)
Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.
No. Creationism is the joke. It pretends to have the answers for everything when, really, it has only one answer. "God". An answer, I might add, that doesn't tell us anything about the how or why of things and is of no practicle use at all. Science is humble enough to admit that there are things unknown and things, which are still in contention. Science, when it finds them, has the real answers. If you don't believe this why don't you go to a faith healer next time you're ill instead of the doctor?
Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.
This is just deliberate blindness. You accept that small changes can occur but refuse to accept that small changes add up to tremendous differences over time. If I take a 2 lb block of granite from a mountain and throw it in a lake nothing immense has changed. But what if I do this 10x each day for a million years? Now imagine such minor changes occurring not only for 5 Billion years but being performed by millions and billions of creatures. Sorry Ekim, it's pure reason.
If you don't believe in macro-evolution you need to come up with a mechanism that stabilizes an organism so that such changes cannot build upon each other over time. Otherwise your refusal is simply denying what is obvious. So far nobody has demonstrated such a mechanism.
Ahh blessed randomness. Can you cite any example where randomness produced order?
Actually, I can: put a glass of water in the freezer and take it out a few hours later. Then tell me how the structure of the ice crystals developed from the chaotic and random liquid molecules that were there previously. Or did God make "miracle" ice for you?
Gee. You could have summarized the voluminous conclusive evidence for me so I don't have to spend another 2 hours reading pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about "chance" and "mutations" and "billions and billions of years".
Your attitude here is simply "I don't understand and I can't be bothered with learning so it must be false." Great argument that. While you're looking up the real meaning of the logical fallacy known as the "Straw Man Argument" (because you used it improperly) I suggest you also look up "Argument from Ignorance".
Look, I hate to take such a terse tone but your attitude belies your intent. You gave a list of questions that you thought atheists couldn't answer. But when we give you answers you tell us you cannot be bothered because they're "boring". You also claim to have an understanding of what you clearly do not understand. There are areas where I must concede that there is no more evidence for the Atheistic position than the Theistic position. Evolution is definitely not one of them. If you find Science to be vague it is only because it has been simplified in its explanation. Science is never vague. If you truly want the details they are out there for your consumption.
I suggest that you consider the possibility that evolution is true and that perhaps your God set up the rules whereby these processes take place. Certainly a God capable of creating a Universe as complex and wondrous as this has the ability to create what he desires in a single moment of creation rather than having to constantly "tweak" his creation in order to "get it right". Don't you see how the notion that he has to constantly change things indicates an imperfect God? Shouldn't the study and understanding of how the world works also be an understanding of how God works? God and science are not exclusive; you just have to move beyond an infantile conception of God.
~Raithere
Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.
No. Creationism is the joke. It pretends to have the answers for everything when, really, it has only one answer. "God". An answer, I might add, that doesn't tell us anything about the how or why of things and is of no practicle use at all. Science is humble enough to admit that there are things unknown and things, which are still in contention. Science, when it finds them, has the real answers. If you don't believe this why don't you go to a faith healer next time you're ill instead of the doctor?
Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.
This is just deliberate blindness. You accept that small changes can occur but refuse to accept that small changes add up to tremendous differences over time. If I take a 2 lb block of granite from a mountain and throw it in a lake nothing immense has changed. But what if I do this 10x each day for a million years? Now imagine such minor changes occurring not only for 5 Billion years but being performed by millions and billions of creatures. Sorry Ekim, it's pure reason.
If you don't believe in macro-evolution you need to come up with a mechanism that stabilizes an organism so that such changes cannot build upon each other over time. Otherwise your refusal is simply denying what is obvious. So far nobody has demonstrated such a mechanism.
Ahh blessed randomness. Can you cite any example where randomness produced order?
Actually, I can: put a glass of water in the freezer and take it out a few hours later. Then tell me how the structure of the ice crystals developed from the chaotic and random liquid molecules that were there previously. Or did God make "miracle" ice for you?
Gee. You could have summarized the voluminous conclusive evidence for me so I don't have to spend another 2 hours reading pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about "chance" and "mutations" and "billions and billions of years".
Your attitude here is simply "I don't understand and I can't be bothered with learning so it must be false." Great argument that. While you're looking up the real meaning of the logical fallacy known as the "Straw Man Argument" (because you used it improperly) I suggest you also look up "Argument from Ignorance".
Look, I hate to take such a terse tone but your attitude belies your intent. You gave a list of questions that you thought atheists couldn't answer. But when we give you answers you tell us you cannot be bothered because they're "boring". You also claim to have an understanding of what you clearly do not understand. There are areas where I must concede that there is no more evidence for the Atheistic position than the Theistic position. Evolution is definitely not one of them. If you find Science to be vague it is only because it has been simplified in its explanation. Science is never vague. If you truly want the details they are out there for your consumption.
I suggest that you consider the possibility that evolution is true and that perhaps your God set up the rules whereby these processes take place. Certainly a God capable of creating a Universe as complex and wondrous as this has the ability to create what he desires in a single moment of creation rather than having to constantly "tweak" his creation in order to "get it right". Don't you see how the notion that he has to constantly change things indicates an imperfect God? Shouldn't the study and understanding of how the world works also be an understanding of how God works? God and science are not exclusive; you just have to move beyond an infantile conception of God.
~Raithere
Last edited:
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
Science = intellectualism. And I admit, it doesn't explain origins good, neither does God.
In fact, I don't think science will ever explain a "true absolute origin" - such knowledge to reach would be of great delectation.
Amen to that Raithere.
This is crap, and you should know it. The planet is crawling with creatures in all stages of development from single cells to blue whales. Any level of organ development is viable, and has been viable along the way.
Same with eyes; we see visual organs on all levels from a few light-sensitive cells on the skin of a worm, to the excellent instruments of mammals. You need not theorize or look at fossils to find out how things evolve, all you need is look around.
Hans
==============================================
James R wrote:
My responses were direct responses to your comments. Yet your reponses are side-tracks. Why? Are you afraid to tackle the issues head-on?
==============================================
You call them side-tracks, thereby relegating them to unimportance. I am not affraid to "tackle" your faith in science. At least I have the guts to admit I have faith. You have as much faith as I do, but refuse to admit it.
Faith means "believing in that which you have not seen". Have you seen "complex evolution" occurring? Have you ever seen one species mutate into another? Have you ever seen any of these things you believe occurred 200 billion years ago? No. You have faith that when Dr. Scientist tells you something about a skull being a form of early man, you simply take it on faith. He must be right. After all he is a brilliant scientist. You have faith that it happened because the alternative is to believe in God. And along with a belief in God comes all the additional greif about higher authority and morality and holiness.
It's easier to believe we're all just fancy animals.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>I believe in 18 acts of creation. Or is it 12?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Fair enough. Seems like a bit of a disorganised God you have there.
==============================================
I am now quite sure it was 14 acts of creation.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Last time I checked a 747 didn't have a central nervous system or a brain.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Yes it does - of a sort. It has many onboard computers and miles of electrical wiring.
==============================================
Sir, you really cannot make a direct correlation between an airplane and a living breathing sentient being. I guess the plane's "feet" are the wheels, and his "head" is the cockpit and his "arms" are the wings... come on.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Your correlation between humans and 747's is flawed in the extreme. I think you must realize this. In short 747's are NOT ALIVE.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
No? What is needed for something to be "alive"? Please define the term "life" or "alive" for me.
==============================================
A living organism has cellular activity and also brainwave activity. Additionally, it displays independent motion, reproduction capability, food and/or liquid consumption, growth (cellular activity), and stimulus response. At the human level it also displays self-awareness, and the ability to form both abstract and creative thought.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>What if when engineers were building the first plane, it was necessary to fly to other parts of the world to have built what it needed to fly?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
It wasn't. As Xev pointed out, there were other more primitive forms of transport available. Just as in the case of evolution more complex life evolved from simpler life.
==============================================
I smell burning straw. What are we goin to start debating about early forms of transportation vis a vis air travel? Stick to the main issue. For the sake of focus let us concern ourselves with the origin of humans (mammals). You can trot out any number of parameceum that are one celled and lungless... but let's stick to human origins.
Where is your evidence that mammals existed at any time without the necessary internal organs.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Ahh the wonderful safety of vagueness.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Haven't you heard the term "abiogenesis"?
==============================================
Yes I have. Have you heard of "Borel's Law"?
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Without getting into specifics (which would gut their theories) evolutionists breeze over complications with the comfy phrases "random change", "unlimited time", and "natural selection".</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Do they? Please provide some examples.
==============================================
Okay... here you go...
"Some scientists say, just throw energy at it and it will happen spontaneously. That is a little bit like saying: put a stick of dynamite under the pile of bricks, and bang, you've got a house! Of course you won't have a house, you'll just have a mess. The difficulty in trying to explain the origin of life is in accounting for how the elaborate organisational structure of these complex molecules came into existence spontaneously from a random input of energy. How did these very specific complex molecules assemble themselves?" (Davies Paul .C.W. [renouned physicist] & Adams Phillip [journalist], "More Big Questions," ABC Books: Sydney, Australia, 1998, pp.53-54, 47-48, 48)
"In spite of recent findings, the time and pace of origin of order Primates remains shrouded in mystery." (Elwyn L. Simons (Dpt of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, USA and Co-Editor of Nuclear Physics)
"...the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living forms." (A. J. Kelso (Professor of Physical Anthropology, University of Colorado)
"When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...The earliest forms that are recognized as being hominid are the famous fossils, associated with primitive stone tools, that were found by Mary and Louis Leakey in the Olduvai gorge and elsewhere in Africa. These fossil hominids lived more than 1.5 million years ago and had brains half the size of ours. They were certainly not members of our own species, and we have no idea whether they were even in our direct ancestral line or only in a parallel line of descent resembling our direct ancestor."
(Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Human Diversity," Scientific American Library: New York NY, 1995, p.163)
"[P]erhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; . . . our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather, the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about our past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about." (David Pilbeam, "Book Review of Leakey's Origins," 66 _American Scientist_ (1978): 379 [cited in Bird, 1:226]).
"...the origin of the simian primates is obscure..." (Martin, R. D., "Primate Origins: plugging the gaps" Nature, Vol 363:223-233 (May 20, 1993))
I have more if your interested.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>So what did [early forms of life] eat?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Each other, mainly.
==============================================
Remember you said some things existed a while without stomachs. So why eat "each other"?
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>How did [creatures with no brains, and stomachs] survive for billions of years?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Individuals did not. Species did.
==============================================
Species are made up of many individuals.
==============================================
James R wrote:
No faith required. This is science.
==============================================
Either you don't know what faith is, or you don't know what science is. When talking about the scientific explanation of origins, one must have LOTS of faith to believe it. (re-read the above quotes from emanent scientists)
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
You'll have to provide some evidence to back that up, I'm afraid. Otherwise, it's just your unsupported opinion. You're entitled to it, but it doesn't actually count for much.
==============================================
Okay... here you go...
"We do not yet understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code. The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress." (Orgel, Leslie E. [Adjunct Professor, University of California-San Diego, Resident Fellow, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, California], "Darwinism at the very beginning of life," New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.151) )
I have more quotes if you want them.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Micro-evolution? No, I don't hate it. It just displays a total incomprehension of evolution, that's all. It's the latest in a long line of Creationist fall-back positions. Having failed to prove their case, Creationists are trying to move the goal posts (again).
==============================================
You are not making sense here. Creationists don't have to "prove their case" with empirical evidence. Why? it is a religion. We admit that we have faith. YOU cannot admit that. You must provide concrete evidence of "complex evolution" which you HAVE NOT DONE. You're the scientist. Not me. So, using science, prove your case. Think of me as a defense attorney. All I must provide in order to nuke evolution theory is reasonable doubt. Which I have done, very easily.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Please provide a reference to where Darwin uses the term "microevolution" in "The Origin of Species".
==============================================
As I wrote in my original post, he teaches the concept of micro-evolution, though he calls it "diversification of species". I don't want to repeat myself. Re-read my previous post where I explained this in detail.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
You really haven't thought this out for yourself, have you?
==============================================
No James, I'm just a stupid fool. You got me... geez I tried to hide it...
==============================================
James R wrote:
I assume you've been reading "Answers in Genesis" or some such publication. Your language is their language.
==============================================
Here let me turn this one back on you...
I assume you've been reading "Talk Origins" or some such publication. Your language is their language.
==============================================
James R wrote:
I can't help it if you won't educate yourself [about insect evolution]. Why claim that nothing is known of insect evolution if you don't know anything about it? Seems strange to me.
==============================================
I never claimed nothing was known about insect evolution. I just asked about it. I personally have never heard about it. All through college, in the books, etc. I am most interested in human origins. By the way as a young man, I went through a phase where I was a wild-eyed pro-evolutionist. Internally I rejected the notion of God, though I was raised to believe. Then I asked questions no science book or biology teacher could anser (and still can't). Therefore I concluded "God must exist, because we exist". Just a little biographical info about yours truly there. Not that you care.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Are you claiming here that early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
This is a side-track. You said that no two organisms could be interdependent yet evolve separately. I gave you a counter-example. That disproves your statement.
==============================================
I asked how human sexual reproduction evolved and you gave an example of pollination. What else am I to conclude? If it had NOTHING to do with human sexual reproduction why did you bring it up?
==============================================
James R wrote:
No, I'm not forming a new sect. This is standard evolution, Mike. Read up and you might eventually understand it. Evolution <b>never</b> works by "need". It works by natural selection working on variation between organisms. This is very basic stuff.
==============================================
This is getting worse and worse. So now instead of things evolving what they need it's totally random mutations, coupled with natural selection and variation.
By the way, when a concept is so basic a fool could understand it, you'll have plenty of customers.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Where does randomness produce order? Alone, randomness doesn't amount to much. Creationists always conveniently forget that evolution is not a random process. They always leave out natural selection - a very important piece of the jigsaw. That is the ultimate straw man.
==============================================
So if a creature evolved a fifth leg (at random), and the leg got in the way causing it to run slow, he would be eaten and thus 5 legged creatures go extinct.
Okay, now... suppose the opposite. the fifth leg helps it to run faster than any other creature. So it survives. At some point this "new form" must procreate. Right? But it must procreate with a 4 legged creature, since it is the only 5 legged creature in existence. There is no guarantee that the mutation will be passed on. The non-mutated DNA of the 4 legged creature will also be passed on. Therefore the 5 legged new form could die out in one or two generations. Now, scientists tell us. "Oh it happens over billions of years". How many acts of procreation would occur over the course of 20 billion years? It doen't wash.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Regarding the eye? Yes, I could summarise the eye's evolution for you, but would it really be worth taking the time?
==============================================
Since it can't be done, I would say no.
==============================================
James R wrote:
There are countless internet sites on this. Do you know how to work a search engine, Mike, or would you like me to point you to one site, perhaps? I'll do it if you ask nicely...
==============================================
http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml
This site simply criticizes the design of the eye and never deals with how it could have evolved from nothing.
Look at this great wisdom from this website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html):
"Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera."
What evidence do scientists have to back this up? Where did this hypothetical light-sensitive spot come from to begin with? Outer-Space maybe?
"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature..."
Do you realize how complex this would be? A light sensitive spot? Popping up from nothing. Sure it is less complex than the eye of an eagle, but how much more complex would a light sensitive spot be from say a patch of normal skin? Yet these scientists say it as if it was a given without trying to explain where the heck the "simple light-sensitive spot" would come from to start with.
I thought science was all about empirical evidence. Turns out one must have lots of faith too.
You're right there are lot's of websites that deal with "evolution of the eye". Not one gives any empirical evidence for their claims.
James R (and other evolutionists) YOU have the burden of proof, for you have set the criteria. Being empiricists you have to prove your claims beyond the shadow of doubt.
You still cannot explain the evolution of sexual reproduction (among many other things). Nor do you have any real evidence of any claim you might make. Therefore it requires faith in science and is consequently NO different than any other dogmatic belief system.
Of course thats just my opinion...
-Mike
James R wrote:
My responses were direct responses to your comments. Yet your reponses are side-tracks. Why? Are you afraid to tackle the issues head-on?
==============================================
You call them side-tracks, thereby relegating them to unimportance. I am not affraid to "tackle" your faith in science. At least I have the guts to admit I have faith. You have as much faith as I do, but refuse to admit it.
Faith means "believing in that which you have not seen". Have you seen "complex evolution" occurring? Have you ever seen one species mutate into another? Have you ever seen any of these things you believe occurred 200 billion years ago? No. You have faith that when Dr. Scientist tells you something about a skull being a form of early man, you simply take it on faith. He must be right. After all he is a brilliant scientist. You have faith that it happened because the alternative is to believe in God. And along with a belief in God comes all the additional greif about higher authority and morality and holiness.
It's easier to believe we're all just fancy animals.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>I believe in 18 acts of creation. Or is it 12?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Fair enough. Seems like a bit of a disorganised God you have there.
==============================================
I am now quite sure it was 14 acts of creation.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Last time I checked a 747 didn't have a central nervous system or a brain.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Yes it does - of a sort. It has many onboard computers and miles of electrical wiring.
==============================================
Sir, you really cannot make a direct correlation between an airplane and a living breathing sentient being. I guess the plane's "feet" are the wheels, and his "head" is the cockpit and his "arms" are the wings... come on.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Your correlation between humans and 747's is flawed in the extreme. I think you must realize this. In short 747's are NOT ALIVE.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
No? What is needed for something to be "alive"? Please define the term "life" or "alive" for me.
==============================================
A living organism has cellular activity and also brainwave activity. Additionally, it displays independent motion, reproduction capability, food and/or liquid consumption, growth (cellular activity), and stimulus response. At the human level it also displays self-awareness, and the ability to form both abstract and creative thought.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>What if when engineers were building the first plane, it was necessary to fly to other parts of the world to have built what it needed to fly?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
It wasn't. As Xev pointed out, there were other more primitive forms of transport available. Just as in the case of evolution more complex life evolved from simpler life.
==============================================
I smell burning straw. What are we goin to start debating about early forms of transportation vis a vis air travel? Stick to the main issue. For the sake of focus let us concern ourselves with the origin of humans (mammals). You can trot out any number of parameceum that are one celled and lungless... but let's stick to human origins.
Where is your evidence that mammals existed at any time without the necessary internal organs.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Ahh the wonderful safety of vagueness.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Haven't you heard the term "abiogenesis"?
==============================================
Yes I have. Have you heard of "Borel's Law"?
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Without getting into specifics (which would gut their theories) evolutionists breeze over complications with the comfy phrases "random change", "unlimited time", and "natural selection".</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Do they? Please provide some examples.
==============================================
Okay... here you go...
"Some scientists say, just throw energy at it and it will happen spontaneously. That is a little bit like saying: put a stick of dynamite under the pile of bricks, and bang, you've got a house! Of course you won't have a house, you'll just have a mess. The difficulty in trying to explain the origin of life is in accounting for how the elaborate organisational structure of these complex molecules came into existence spontaneously from a random input of energy. How did these very specific complex molecules assemble themselves?" (Davies Paul .C.W. [renouned physicist] & Adams Phillip [journalist], "More Big Questions," ABC Books: Sydney, Australia, 1998, pp.53-54, 47-48, 48)
"In spite of recent findings, the time and pace of origin of order Primates remains shrouded in mystery." (Elwyn L. Simons (Dpt of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, USA and Co-Editor of Nuclear Physics)
"...the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living forms." (A. J. Kelso (Professor of Physical Anthropology, University of Colorado)
"When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...The earliest forms that are recognized as being hominid are the famous fossils, associated with primitive stone tools, that were found by Mary and Louis Leakey in the Olduvai gorge and elsewhere in Africa. These fossil hominids lived more than 1.5 million years ago and had brains half the size of ours. They were certainly not members of our own species, and we have no idea whether they were even in our direct ancestral line or only in a parallel line of descent resembling our direct ancestor."
(Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Human Diversity," Scientific American Library: New York NY, 1995, p.163)
"[P]erhaps generations of students of human evolution, including myself, have been flailing about in the dark; . . . our data base is too sparse, too slippery, for it to be able to mold our theories. Rather, the theories are more statements about us and ideology than about our past. Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does about how humans came about." (David Pilbeam, "Book Review of Leakey's Origins," 66 _American Scientist_ (1978): 379 [cited in Bird, 1:226]).
"...the origin of the simian primates is obscure..." (Martin, R. D., "Primate Origins: plugging the gaps" Nature, Vol 363:223-233 (May 20, 1993))
I have more if your interested.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>So what did [early forms of life] eat?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Each other, mainly.
==============================================
Remember you said some things existed a while without stomachs. So why eat "each other"?
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>How did [creatures with no brains, and stomachs] survive for billions of years?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
Individuals did not. Species did.
==============================================
Species are made up of many individuals.
==============================================
James R wrote:
No faith required. This is science.
==============================================
Either you don't know what faith is, or you don't know what science is. When talking about the scientific explanation of origins, one must have LOTS of faith to believe it. (re-read the above quotes from emanent scientists)
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Face it, when it comes to origins, science is a joke.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
You'll have to provide some evidence to back that up, I'm afraid. Otherwise, it's just your unsupported opinion. You're entitled to it, but it doesn't actually count for much.
==============================================
Okay... here you go...
"We do not yet understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code. The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress." (Orgel, Leslie E. [Adjunct Professor, University of California-San Diego, Resident Fellow, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, California], "Darwinism at the very beginning of life," New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p.151) )
I have more quotes if you want them.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Micro-evolution? No, I don't hate it. It just displays a total incomprehension of evolution, that's all. It's the latest in a long line of Creationist fall-back positions. Having failed to prove their case, Creationists are trying to move the goal posts (again).
==============================================
You are not making sense here. Creationists don't have to "prove their case" with empirical evidence. Why? it is a religion. We admit that we have faith. YOU cannot admit that. You must provide concrete evidence of "complex evolution" which you HAVE NOT DONE. You're the scientist. Not me. So, using science, prove your case. Think of me as a defense attorney. All I must provide in order to nuke evolution theory is reasonable doubt. Which I have done, very easily.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Please provide a reference to where Darwin uses the term "microevolution" in "The Origin of Species".
==============================================
As I wrote in my original post, he teaches the concept of micro-evolution, though he calls it "diversification of species". I don't want to repeat myself. Re-read my previous post where I explained this in detail.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Anyway, I do admit that "diversification" occurs, but i totally reject as foolish poppycock the notion that one species can turn into a completely different species over time.</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
You really haven't thought this out for yourself, have you?
==============================================
No James, I'm just a stupid fool. You got me... geez I tried to hide it...
==============================================
James R wrote:
I assume you've been reading "Answers in Genesis" or some such publication. Your language is their language.
==============================================
Here let me turn this one back on you...
I assume you've been reading "Talk Origins" or some such publication. Your language is their language.
==============================================
James R wrote:
I can't help it if you won't educate yourself [about insect evolution]. Why claim that nothing is known of insect evolution if you don't know anything about it? Seems strange to me.
==============================================
I never claimed nothing was known about insect evolution. I just asked about it. I personally have never heard about it. All through college, in the books, etc. I am most interested in human origins. By the way as a young man, I went through a phase where I was a wild-eyed pro-evolutionist. Internally I rejected the notion of God, though I was raised to believe. Then I asked questions no science book or biology teacher could anser (and still can't). Therefore I concluded "God must exist, because we exist". Just a little biographical info about yours truly there. Not that you care.
==============================================
Ekimklaw wrote:
<i>Are you claiming here that early humans reproduced by pollination, or a similar method?</i>
==============================================
James R wrote:
This is a side-track. You said that no two organisms could be interdependent yet evolve separately. I gave you a counter-example. That disproves your statement.
==============================================
I asked how human sexual reproduction evolved and you gave an example of pollination. What else am I to conclude? If it had NOTHING to do with human sexual reproduction why did you bring it up?
==============================================
James R wrote:
No, I'm not forming a new sect. This is standard evolution, Mike. Read up and you might eventually understand it. Evolution <b>never</b> works by "need". It works by natural selection working on variation between organisms. This is very basic stuff.
==============================================
This is getting worse and worse. So now instead of things evolving what they need it's totally random mutations, coupled with natural selection and variation.
By the way, when a concept is so basic a fool could understand it, you'll have plenty of customers.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Where does randomness produce order? Alone, randomness doesn't amount to much. Creationists always conveniently forget that evolution is not a random process. They always leave out natural selection - a very important piece of the jigsaw. That is the ultimate straw man.
==============================================
So if a creature evolved a fifth leg (at random), and the leg got in the way causing it to run slow, he would be eaten and thus 5 legged creatures go extinct.
Okay, now... suppose the opposite. the fifth leg helps it to run faster than any other creature. So it survives. At some point this "new form" must procreate. Right? But it must procreate with a 4 legged creature, since it is the only 5 legged creature in existence. There is no guarantee that the mutation will be passed on. The non-mutated DNA of the 4 legged creature will also be passed on. Therefore the 5 legged new form could die out in one or two generations. Now, scientists tell us. "Oh it happens over billions of years". How many acts of procreation would occur over the course of 20 billion years? It doen't wash.
==============================================
James R wrote:
Regarding the eye? Yes, I could summarise the eye's evolution for you, but would it really be worth taking the time?
==============================================
Since it can't be done, I would say no.
==============================================
James R wrote:
There are countless internet sites on this. Do you know how to work a search engine, Mike, or would you like me to point you to one site, perhaps? I'll do it if you ask nicely...
==============================================
http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml
This site simply criticizes the design of the eye and never deals with how it could have evolved from nothing.
Look at this great wisdom from this website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html):
"Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera."
What evidence do scientists have to back this up? Where did this hypothetical light-sensitive spot come from to begin with? Outer-Space maybe?
"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature..."
Do you realize how complex this would be? A light sensitive spot? Popping up from nothing. Sure it is less complex than the eye of an eagle, but how much more complex would a light sensitive spot be from say a patch of normal skin? Yet these scientists say it as if it was a given without trying to explain where the heck the "simple light-sensitive spot" would come from to start with.
I thought science was all about empirical evidence. Turns out one must have lots of faith too.
You're right there are lot's of websites that deal with "evolution of the eye". Not one gives any empirical evidence for their claims.
James R (and other evolutionists) YOU have the burden of proof, for you have set the criteria. Being empiricists you have to prove your claims beyond the shadow of doubt.
You still cannot explain the evolution of sexual reproduction (among many other things). Nor do you have any real evidence of any claim you might make. Therefore it requires faith in science and is consequently NO different than any other dogmatic belief system.
Of course thats just my opinion...
-Mike
==============================================
Xev wrote:
It is believed that organisms gradually seperated into gender, before they did they reproduced by conjugation (sp?) and asexual reproduction.
==============================================
Perhaps the best example of what I believe is summed up in the so-called Borel's Law. It states: "Any chance smaller than 1 out of 10 to the 50th power is statistically considered to be a "zero" chance."
To me this says basically the very start of life is highly unlikely by random chance.
-Mike
Xev wrote:
It is believed that organisms gradually seperated into gender, before they did they reproduced by conjugation (sp?) and asexual reproduction.
==============================================
Perhaps the best example of what I believe is summed up in the so-called Borel's Law. It states: "Any chance smaller than 1 out of 10 to the 50th power is statistically considered to be a "zero" chance."
To me this says basically the very start of life is highly unlikely by random chance.
-Mike
"I personally have never heard about it. All through college, in the books, etc. I am most interested in human origins. By the way as a young man, I went through a phase where I was a wild-eyed pro-evolutionist. Internally I rejected the notion of God, though I was raised to believe. Then I asked questions no science book or biology teacher could anser (and still can't). Therefore I concluded "God must exist, because we exist". Just a little biographical info about yours truly there. Not that you care"
I don't know enough about evolution to truely help James here, but I have one logic comment to make.
A thousand years ago you would have looked at the sun, said science can't tell you why it is the colour it is and assumed God made it that colour.
I don't know enough about evolution to truely help James here, but I have one logic comment to make.
A thousand years ago you would have looked at the sun, said science can't tell you why it is the colour it is and assumed God made it that colour.
Re: Re: Re: Cris, I know
Why do you separate the two?
The Universe = matter + TBD (To Be Determined)
God = Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent ruler of the Universe
If you think about it, there is a lot of crossover between the two. This reminds me of the blind men and the elephant (one feels the trunk and calls it a "snake", etc.). Science sees a physical Universe and describes what it sees. Religion senses (thru its faith) a different picture. Maybe they are more related than you know?
Why do you separate the two?
The Universe = matter + TBD (To Be Determined)
God = Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent ruler of the Universe
If you think about it, there is a lot of crossover between the two. This reminds me of the blind men and the elephant (one feels the trunk and calls it a "snake", etc.). Science sees a physical Universe and describes what it sees. Religion senses (thru its faith) a different picture. Maybe they are more related than you know?
Ekimklaw:
<i>Faith means "believing in that which you have not seen".</i>
"Faith" has at least two meanings, in fact. They are:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
In the sense of the first meaning, I have faith in science, and you have faith in God. However, I usually use the word "faith" in the second of these two senses. In that sense, you have faith in God, but by belief in science is not faith, because it rests on material evidence.
<i>Have you seen "complex evolution" occurring? Have you ever seen one species mutate into another? Have you ever seen any of these things you believe occurred 200 billion years ago? No.</i>
All that is true. But there are many things for which there is indirect evidence but no direct evidence. For example, I believe that quarks exist, though nobody has ever seen one. I believe in magnetic fields, but I have never seen one of those either. I believe the universe is expanding, but I cannot perceive that directly - I can only infer it from other observations. In a similar vein, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I do not need to witness it directly to infer that it occurs.
<i>You have faith that when Dr. Scientist tells you something about a skull being a form of early man, you simply take it on faith.</i>
No. I weigh it up against my prior knowledge and against other sources. In any case, very few scientists make such unqualified claims.
<i>It's easier to believe we're all just fancy animals.</i>
Do you really think so? Why is that such a recent idea, then? For millenia, humans believed that they were special - "above" the animals. I think it's a lot harder to believe what evolution tells us - that's one reason you choose the easy path.
<i>Sir, you really cannot make a direct correlation between an airplane and a living breathing sentient being. I guess the plane's "feet" are the wheels, and his "head" is the cockpit and his "arms" are the wings... come on.</i>
There is a much closer correlation between the electrical wiring of a plane and the human nervous system than there is between a human's arms and a plane's wings. We could continue this discussion, but it is somewhat peripheral to the main point here, so I'll leave it for now.
<i>A living organism has cellular activity and also brainwave activity. Additionally, it displays independent motion, reproduction capability, food and/or liquid consumption, growth (cellular activity), and stimulus response.</i>
Is a virus alive? What about a prion? They don't display all the characteristics you require.
Is a robot alive? It can have all the characteristics you require.
<i>Where is your evidence that mammals existed at any time without the necessary internal organs.</i>
The class "mammal" is a human construct. A mammal is <b>defined</b> by certain characteristics. If an organism lacks any of those characteristics it is not a mammal. You question is similar to saying "Show me an example of a radio without a receiver." The term "radio" demands a receiver.
<i>Have you heard of "Borel's Law"?</i>
Yes. For an informative discussion, see <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html" target="_blank">here</a>.
------
We then hit your first series of quotes, which aim to show how evolutionists "breeze over complications". However, reading these quotes, I get the exact opposite impression. The evolutionists are explicitly pointing out complications and difficulties with the details of evolutionary theory. That's good science, not "breezing over" things.
For the record, I agree with almost everything in that set of quotes.
<i>Either you don't know what faith is, or you don't know what science is. When talking about the scientific explanation of origins, one must have LOTS of faith to believe it.</i>
See my previous definition of "faith".
----
We then come to your second quote, supposed to support the notion that "when it comes to origins, science is a joke". However, that quote simply talks about one problem in working out the origin of the genetic code - a sub-problem of the general issue of origins. The fact that we have gaps in our knowledge doesn't mean we know nothing. Actually, that Creationists claim to have all the answers should make one deeply suspicious.
<i>You are not making sense here. Creationists don't have to "prove their case" with empirical evidence. Why? it is a religion.</i>
You differ from Creationist dogma markedly there, Mike. The original aim of Creationism was to get "equal time" in US schools for religious discussion, thus circumventing the first amendment of the US Constitution by dressing religion as science. For that reason, no Creationist would ever admit that Creationism is a faith rather than a science. I cannot argue against a religion, except where is blatantly contradicts scientific fact. Where there is room for doubt or interpretation, a religious option is as good as a scientific one.
Where Creationists <b>do</b> have to prove their case is where they claim to make scientific statements. In that case, they forgo the protection of religion and move themselves into the arena of science. Science requires strict evidential standards. Creationists have never met those standards.
<i>All I must provide in order to nuke evolution theory is reasonable doubt.</i>
No. In order to "nuke" evolution, you must provide a better alternative. That's how science works. Evolution is the best scientific theory of life's development. If you can provide a better <b>scientific</b> theory, scientists will embrace it with open arms. But, as you yourself admit, creationism is not science. So, it remains that the best scientific theory is evolution.
<i>By the way as a young man, I went through a phase where I was a wild-eyed pro-evolutionist. Internally I rejected the notion of God, though I was raised to believe. Then I asked questions...</i>
Stories like yours are a dime a dozen. I could easily find many which are the exact reverse. On the other hand, in my experience by far the most common reason why people don't accept evolution is simply that they don't understand it and refuse to learn about it.
<i>I asked how human sexual reproduction evolved and you gave an example of pollination. What else am I to conclude? If it had NOTHING to do with human sexual reproduction why did you bring it up?</i>
I covered this in my previous post.
<i>This is getting worse and worse. So now instead of things evolving what they need it's totally random mutations, coupled with natural selection and variation.</i>
Yes, that's almost 100% correct. Variation can arise by means other than mutation, of course, but you're on the right track.
<i>By the way, when a concept is so basic a fool could understand it, you'll have plenty of customers.</i>
You mean, like "God made everything"?
<i>So if a creature evolved a fifth leg (at random), and the leg got in the way causing it to run slow, he would be eaten and thus 5 legged creatures go extinct.</i>
Perhaps. It's a question of probabilities, but again you're on the right track.
<i>Okay, now... suppose the opposite. the fifth leg helps it to run faster than any other creature. So it survives. At some point this "new form" must procreate. Right? But it must procreate with a 4 legged creature, since it is the only 5 legged creature in existence. There is no guarantee that the mutation will be passed on.</i>
You've studied biology, Mike. Come on. You can work this one out for yourself.
<i>What evidence do scientists have to back this up [evolution of the eye]? Where did this hypothetical light-sensitive spot come from to begin with? Outer-Space maybe?</i>
There are countless creatures alive today with everything from a light-sensitive spot to full eyes of different types. (BTW, the human eye is not particularly good compared to some eyes.) In the middle of your brain there's a light-sensitive spot which never sees any light at all. These spots are all over the place. Many naturally occurring substances are light-sensitive.
<i>Do you realize how complex this would be? A light sensitive spot? Popping up from nothing. Sure it is less complex than the eye of an eagle, but how much more complex would a light sensitive spot be from say a patch of normal skin?</i>
Perhaps surprisingly, not very much more complex at all.
<i>James R (and other evolutionists) YOU have the burden of proof, for you have set the criteria. Being empiricists you have to prove your claims beyond the shadow of doubt.</i>
I've discussed this above. However, bear in mind that there is a wealth of evidence for various aspects of evolution - far too much to summarise here.
<i>You still cannot explain the evolution of sexual reproduction (among many other things).</i>
Several possible explanations have been put forward in this very thread.
<i>Faith means "believing in that which you have not seen".</i>
"Faith" has at least two meanings, in fact. They are:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
In the sense of the first meaning, I have faith in science, and you have faith in God. However, I usually use the word "faith" in the second of these two senses. In that sense, you have faith in God, but by belief in science is not faith, because it rests on material evidence.
<i>Have you seen "complex evolution" occurring? Have you ever seen one species mutate into another? Have you ever seen any of these things you believe occurred 200 billion years ago? No.</i>
All that is true. But there are many things for which there is indirect evidence but no direct evidence. For example, I believe that quarks exist, though nobody has ever seen one. I believe in magnetic fields, but I have never seen one of those either. I believe the universe is expanding, but I cannot perceive that directly - I can only infer it from other observations. In a similar vein, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I do not need to witness it directly to infer that it occurs.
<i>You have faith that when Dr. Scientist tells you something about a skull being a form of early man, you simply take it on faith.</i>
No. I weigh it up against my prior knowledge and against other sources. In any case, very few scientists make such unqualified claims.
<i>It's easier to believe we're all just fancy animals.</i>
Do you really think so? Why is that such a recent idea, then? For millenia, humans believed that they were special - "above" the animals. I think it's a lot harder to believe what evolution tells us - that's one reason you choose the easy path.
<i>Sir, you really cannot make a direct correlation between an airplane and a living breathing sentient being. I guess the plane's "feet" are the wheels, and his "head" is the cockpit and his "arms" are the wings... come on.</i>
There is a much closer correlation between the electrical wiring of a plane and the human nervous system than there is between a human's arms and a plane's wings. We could continue this discussion, but it is somewhat peripheral to the main point here, so I'll leave it for now.
<i>A living organism has cellular activity and also brainwave activity. Additionally, it displays independent motion, reproduction capability, food and/or liquid consumption, growth (cellular activity), and stimulus response.</i>
Is a virus alive? What about a prion? They don't display all the characteristics you require.
Is a robot alive? It can have all the characteristics you require.
<i>Where is your evidence that mammals existed at any time without the necessary internal organs.</i>
The class "mammal" is a human construct. A mammal is <b>defined</b> by certain characteristics. If an organism lacks any of those characteristics it is not a mammal. You question is similar to saying "Show me an example of a radio without a receiver." The term "radio" demands a receiver.
<i>Have you heard of "Borel's Law"?</i>
Yes. For an informative discussion, see <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html" target="_blank">here</a>.
------
We then hit your first series of quotes, which aim to show how evolutionists "breeze over complications". However, reading these quotes, I get the exact opposite impression. The evolutionists are explicitly pointing out complications and difficulties with the details of evolutionary theory. That's good science, not "breezing over" things.
For the record, I agree with almost everything in that set of quotes.
<i>Either you don't know what faith is, or you don't know what science is. When talking about the scientific explanation of origins, one must have LOTS of faith to believe it.</i>
See my previous definition of "faith".
----
We then come to your second quote, supposed to support the notion that "when it comes to origins, science is a joke". However, that quote simply talks about one problem in working out the origin of the genetic code - a sub-problem of the general issue of origins. The fact that we have gaps in our knowledge doesn't mean we know nothing. Actually, that Creationists claim to have all the answers should make one deeply suspicious.
<i>You are not making sense here. Creationists don't have to "prove their case" with empirical evidence. Why? it is a religion.</i>
You differ from Creationist dogma markedly there, Mike. The original aim of Creationism was to get "equal time" in US schools for religious discussion, thus circumventing the first amendment of the US Constitution by dressing religion as science. For that reason, no Creationist would ever admit that Creationism is a faith rather than a science. I cannot argue against a religion, except where is blatantly contradicts scientific fact. Where there is room for doubt or interpretation, a religious option is as good as a scientific one.
Where Creationists <b>do</b> have to prove their case is where they claim to make scientific statements. In that case, they forgo the protection of religion and move themselves into the arena of science. Science requires strict evidential standards. Creationists have never met those standards.
<i>All I must provide in order to nuke evolution theory is reasonable doubt.</i>
No. In order to "nuke" evolution, you must provide a better alternative. That's how science works. Evolution is the best scientific theory of life's development. If you can provide a better <b>scientific</b> theory, scientists will embrace it with open arms. But, as you yourself admit, creationism is not science. So, it remains that the best scientific theory is evolution.
<i>By the way as a young man, I went through a phase where I was a wild-eyed pro-evolutionist. Internally I rejected the notion of God, though I was raised to believe. Then I asked questions...</i>
Stories like yours are a dime a dozen. I could easily find many which are the exact reverse. On the other hand, in my experience by far the most common reason why people don't accept evolution is simply that they don't understand it and refuse to learn about it.
<i>I asked how human sexual reproduction evolved and you gave an example of pollination. What else am I to conclude? If it had NOTHING to do with human sexual reproduction why did you bring it up?</i>
I covered this in my previous post.
<i>This is getting worse and worse. So now instead of things evolving what they need it's totally random mutations, coupled with natural selection and variation.</i>
Yes, that's almost 100% correct. Variation can arise by means other than mutation, of course, but you're on the right track.
<i>By the way, when a concept is so basic a fool could understand it, you'll have plenty of customers.</i>
You mean, like "God made everything"?
<i>So if a creature evolved a fifth leg (at random), and the leg got in the way causing it to run slow, he would be eaten and thus 5 legged creatures go extinct.</i>
Perhaps. It's a question of probabilities, but again you're on the right track.
<i>Okay, now... suppose the opposite. the fifth leg helps it to run faster than any other creature. So it survives. At some point this "new form" must procreate. Right? But it must procreate with a 4 legged creature, since it is the only 5 legged creature in existence. There is no guarantee that the mutation will be passed on.</i>
You've studied biology, Mike. Come on. You can work this one out for yourself.
<i>What evidence do scientists have to back this up [evolution of the eye]? Where did this hypothetical light-sensitive spot come from to begin with? Outer-Space maybe?</i>
There are countless creatures alive today with everything from a light-sensitive spot to full eyes of different types. (BTW, the human eye is not particularly good compared to some eyes.) In the middle of your brain there's a light-sensitive spot which never sees any light at all. These spots are all over the place. Many naturally occurring substances are light-sensitive.
<i>Do you realize how complex this would be? A light sensitive spot? Popping up from nothing. Sure it is less complex than the eye of an eagle, but how much more complex would a light sensitive spot be from say a patch of normal skin?</i>
Perhaps surprisingly, not very much more complex at all.
<i>James R (and other evolutionists) YOU have the burden of proof, for you have set the criteria. Being empiricists you have to prove your claims beyond the shadow of doubt.</i>
I've discussed this above. However, bear in mind that there is a wealth of evidence for various aspects of evolution - far too much to summarise here.
<i>You still cannot explain the evolution of sexual reproduction (among many other things).</i>
Several possible explanations have been put forward in this very thread.
I'm a little surprised that a Creationist brings up sexual procreation as a discussion point, since it is probably the strongest single piece of evidence for evolution. But lets see ---
How did it evolve?
According to science, the first life was single celled. Single-celled organisms procreate by dividing or budding, they dont have sexes. But they do mate! The phase is called Zygyzy, and in this phase, two single celled organisms meet, connect and exchange genetic material.
Next level is believed to be plants. Some plants can procreate by a form of division (a broken-off part takes root and becomes a new individual) but most use spores or seeds which are polleniated first. Most plants are hermafrodits and capable of polleniating themselves, nevertheless they go to great trouble to exchange pollen where possible. Some plants have seperate sexes.
Animals mostly have separate sexes, but some are hermafrodites and can reproduce all by themselves. Still, most hermafrodites prefer to mate with others if they have the opportunity. Some animals can change sex when convinient.
Finally, we come to primates, including ourselves. By the time we evolved, our strain of animals had developed a rather high specialisation, and males and females are even genetically different. Although most of out secondary sexual attributes are merely hormone dependent, we are born different.
--So this gives an idea of how it evolved, but in this discussion a much more interesting question is:
What is the purpose of sexual procreation?
Sex is quite costly to most species. Alone the fact that a large proportion of individuals are incabable of bearing young can be a problem for any species. Also a lot of energy goes into finding, courting, and mating the opposite sex. All this is not exactly a survival advantage (and wether you believe in evulution or not, you have to accept that Nature is very unforgiving towards the unfit).
So why on Earth is it there? To enable the exchange of genetic material! Why is the exchange of genetic material so vitally important? Because thats what makes evolution happen! If all species were created as is with no prospect for change, then there would be no need for the exchange of genetic material, and sexual procreation would be an expensive luxury.
About how a species can evolve into a different species:
Actually, although we have only witnessed it on the microbiological level because of the timescale involved, we have excellent documentation of a number of instances and good evidence for many more. It is not difficult to find the relevant litterature if you want to.
Proof? Very little can be proved and has ever been proved entirely unequivocally. Even some mathematical "truths" have been challenged after centuries of recognition.
Borel's law: Sure, statistic work this way. When somebody tells you it is *perfectly* safe to take the train, we all now that accidents can and will happen anyway. Likewise, the statistical change of winning a big lottery prize is zero, but some do anyway (and millions hope for it).
Ekimklaw, you are entitled to believe what you will, and as long as you talk belief, you dont have to prove a thing. However, when you challenge science, demanding proof, you have chosen science's battlefield, and your personal beliefs become irrelevant. If you want to challenge science, you must do it on science's premises.
Hans
How did it evolve?
According to science, the first life was single celled. Single-celled organisms procreate by dividing or budding, they dont have sexes. But they do mate! The phase is called Zygyzy, and in this phase, two single celled organisms meet, connect and exchange genetic material.
Next level is believed to be plants. Some plants can procreate by a form of division (a broken-off part takes root and becomes a new individual) but most use spores or seeds which are polleniated first. Most plants are hermafrodits and capable of polleniating themselves, nevertheless they go to great trouble to exchange pollen where possible. Some plants have seperate sexes.
Animals mostly have separate sexes, but some are hermafrodites and can reproduce all by themselves. Still, most hermafrodites prefer to mate with others if they have the opportunity. Some animals can change sex when convinient.
Finally, we come to primates, including ourselves. By the time we evolved, our strain of animals had developed a rather high specialisation, and males and females are even genetically different. Although most of out secondary sexual attributes are merely hormone dependent, we are born different.
--So this gives an idea of how it evolved, but in this discussion a much more interesting question is:
What is the purpose of sexual procreation?
Sex is quite costly to most species. Alone the fact that a large proportion of individuals are incabable of bearing young can be a problem for any species. Also a lot of energy goes into finding, courting, and mating the opposite sex. All this is not exactly a survival advantage (and wether you believe in evulution or not, you have to accept that Nature is very unforgiving towards the unfit).
So why on Earth is it there? To enable the exchange of genetic material! Why is the exchange of genetic material so vitally important? Because thats what makes evolution happen! If all species were created as is with no prospect for change, then there would be no need for the exchange of genetic material, and sexual procreation would be an expensive luxury.
About how a species can evolve into a different species:
Actually, although we have only witnessed it on the microbiological level because of the timescale involved, we have excellent documentation of a number of instances and good evidence for many more. It is not difficult to find the relevant litterature if you want to.
Proof? Very little can be proved and has ever been proved entirely unequivocally. Even some mathematical "truths" have been challenged after centuries of recognition.
Borel's law: Sure, statistic work this way. When somebody tells you it is *perfectly* safe to take the train, we all now that accidents can and will happen anyway. Likewise, the statistical change of winning a big lottery prize is zero, but some do anyway (and millions hope for it).
Ekimklaw, you are entitled to believe what you will, and as long as you talk belief, you dont have to prove a thing. However, when you challenge science, demanding proof, you have chosen science's battlefield, and your personal beliefs become irrelevant. If you want to challenge science, you must do it on science's premises.
Hans