Denial of evolution II

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Forgive me for butting in, Pteriax, but exactly how is it known that Genesis is written from God's perspective? You do request evidence on here for a variety of things - spidergoat in particular was good enough to treat with you fairly from the last posts I saw, but you blasted his posts immediately after as being "say-so". How is it known that Genesis is written from God's perspective, or that it indeed actually represents God's unmodified word?

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

    Best regards,

    Geoff
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    I think evolution is not non existent. I also think that what people believe about evolution is overlooking some variables and making too many assumptions based on other theories and is generally inaccurate. So, no, I do not believe in the same evolution that you do - and I am starting to doubt the parts that I thought were factual. Does that make more sense?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    In a literary sense the creation story is a narrative of God's actions from his perspective. Besides, I am not claiming that there is a mountain of proof that Genesis is the unmodified word of God. If I were, I would show you that proof. My whole point with this was to clarify my beliefs about when things were created for someone - not to provide proof.

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



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Not sure what you're getting at with the rant about me; I was discussing things with several people here. I think that life starting and life moving on are intrinsically related - that's my belief. I do not think there is any interfering in natural law going on. I think that people are wrong about the natural laws themselves. And no tricks either - it was necessary to prepare the earth for mankind - IMO. As for your particular crystallization argument, just because an improbable thing happens doesn't mean that it had to. Just because you can make odds for any particular thing happening just so does not mean it was not guided somehow. Like the bucket needing a chemist. No, the chemist did not control the shape and molecule count of each crystal, but he did set up the experiment. Am I saying God set everything in motion and left? Absolutely not, just dissecting your metaphor.
     
  8. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Not sure this one deserves a reply, but...

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

    And I do have considerable familiarity with most of those subjects, particularly thermodynamics and probability / probability mechanics.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You do not.

    I don't think you realize just how ridiculous this set of statements is, for example:
    Or this one, about Genesis "confirming" something in the physical sciences:
    These matters are not advanced, arcane, or sophisticated ones; they involve very basic and introductory concepts, and reveal your almost complete ignorance and unfamiliarity with the matters involved, as well as your fundamentalist Christian background.

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

    Messages:
    41
    I know what my answers to the questions are. I know what the commonly accepted answers are as well. That I believe there is a different answer makes me dishonest? No. All your efforts to label me will fail, as I do not fit a stereotype. It would be easy then, because you could say he's y therefore x is true about him also. Example: you just inferred that I don't know about science because I am Christian - you went as far as to label me a fundamentalist. Why? Because I don't see the same thing you see when we look at data. Think for yourself a moment. Question that which calls itself correct or authoritative. See if that conclusion is really unbiased - a good way to tell if a report is unbiased is if that report lists hypotheticals that would disprove the contents of the report. Whatever you do, don't assume for a minute that I am like any others you have encountered here. Surely you must see the logical fallacy in trying to explain to the other guy that he is stupid rather than addressing the issue at hand. I am sorry your worldview is so limited that you see people who have a different perspective as unintelligent or as liars or whatever other box you try to fit them into - what a depressing thought.
     
  11. tamkinrules how troublesome... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    25
    LOL!!! Seriously though, the whole reason that evolution is so accepted is because we HAVE found transitional fossils. We have found a turtle/tortoise fossil that has bones coming outside it that act as armor. Today the turtle has a shell. We've found dinosaur birds a.k.a. archeoptrix. Do you see what I'm getting at?
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, I inferred that you don't "know about science" because you demonstrated on this thread that you have no idea what a thermodynamically open system is, you don't know what "proof" and evidence are in a scientific argument, you don't know what kinds of "intermediary species" are expected either in the fossil record or the extant biology according to evolutionary theory, you haven't the foggiest notion what "information" would be as applied to DNA or how it would come to be "contained" in a genome, and so forth.

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

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

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

    Messages:
    239
    Then why the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium'?
    You are correct it is an argument from incredulity. We don't see people who don't have blue eyes and are not carrying the recessive gene for it suddenly giving birth to people with blue eyes. In a similar vein, we don't see Chinese or Japanese people suddenly giving birth to blond-haired, blue-eyed people.
     
  14. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    You are still avoiding the questions, iceaura. And missing about 90% of the point of each of my posts. Saying everyone knows is a logical fallacy and therefore not a valid argument - likewise with telling me to visit a highly biased website (I have been there). Any answers I have gotten thus far are either lacking data to back them up, or haven't yet been discussed in depth enough. I'm still not sure what agenda you think I have, but yours is clearly NOT to discuss the topic.
     
  15. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Yes, that's right.... or so it would seem on the surface. I'm not sure about the turtle but the "dinosaur birds" as you call them, are only found in one county in Germany - and then in incredibly tiny amounts. But I do see what you are getting at. Things look alike so they must be intrinsically related. I would disagree with that sentiment.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I didn't say everyone knows. I said you don't. And that is giving you the benefit of the doubt - it is quite possible that you do know why evolutionary theory contradicts none of the laws of thermodynamics, in which case your "questions" reveal not understandable ignorance but but much less easily forgiven character flaws.
    All your actual questions have been answered, as if they were honest*. Your pretense of having any interest in those answers is no longer operational, as they say - your responses to the answers reveal your actual agenda here, which is stereotypical creationist trolling.

    *For example, this one:
    Which was answered immediately as follows:
    Earning this bit of pretend misunderstanding and maneuvering for the agenda:
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2009
  17. Pteriax Registered Member

    Messages:
    41
    Still wrong. I bet it's because you are still using the same assumptions. Example: you still try to fit me into a stereotype for some reason. My actual agenda is to discuss evolution, not defend my motives for wanting to discuss evolution, which is clearly all you want to do. Nitpicking my posts and avoiding the actual subject (as you are doing) is characteristic of another very negative stereotype that you may fit; just in case you were operating under the delusion that you are better than the rest of us.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You exemplify the stereotypical creationist troll perfectly, and you have no interest in discussing evolutionary theory - you have refused several opportunities to join an actual discussion on this thread alone.
     
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Yes it does. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Finally, Pteriax, are you now satisfied in relation to your question on thermodynamics? If not what leaves you uneasy? Please be detailed.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2009
  20. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

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

    Messages:
    41
    Very well.

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

    Messages:
    12,575
    /inhales deeply

    nice!
    a breath of fresh science!
     
  23. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    That is a misrepresentation of thermodynamics and is an invalid conclusion. The second law of thermodynamics simply states that the total entropy of a closed system increases over time. This does not mean that the entropy of every part of the system must increase over time, which is what you erroneously concluded. In particular, the second law does not preclude some parts of an overall system becoming more orderly (a decrease entropy) so long as the system as a whole is increasing in energy.

    Think of it this way: It is approaching summer in the Northern hemisphere. People who live there will soon be turning your air conditioners on. Air conditioners decrease the entropy in a house at the expense of increased entropy outdoors.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page