Denial of evolution II

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

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

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

Don't do it again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Specific inadequacies:

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

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

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

Nothing about the ToE violates any law of thermodynamics.

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

Please point out the fallacies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Goodbye and have fun patting each other on the back!

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

On abiogenesis...

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Careful Saquist, Fraggle Rocker will ban you for trolling.

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

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

Control, not prevent.

 

Good job, coward. You really showed us.

 

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

 

Here is the bottom line

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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