or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism - Page 5  

post #161 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Evolution does not have to mean that tomorrow bees and pigs start walking erect with apposable thumbs.

Creationists, in their haste to prove Evolution is wrong, gloss over the concept of context.

A mutation is a mutation is a mutation.

BUT, in one context it leads to dominance, in another it leads to failure. Same mutation, different context, different outcome.

By the way,

Eskimos don't need to evolve fur, because they already have opposable thumbs and make tools and kill animals that have blubber and fur. They eat the animal, get fatter themselves, and wear the animal's fur.

Survival of the fittest.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #162 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
This Film fails to explain how the eye was evolved. The scientist supposes that it could have evolved from many slight changes over time. There is no evidence of this however. Just faith that it is so.

Fellows

so you have been doing some research? And you pretend you have no idea how it could happen. Cue a load of "" smilies, in which case you are deliberately deceiving, but hey don't worry, that doesn't say anything about 'Integrity' or make you a willful liar.


or someone gave you a link to a 2 minute clip to reinforce the idea that 'Science' can 'only' speak on it for 2 minutes
post #163 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Tell me exactly how that short clip does not explain how an eye could have evolved.

Ohh It "supposes" it could. I just fail to buy into the idea that over half a million years as he said that a bunch of changes/mistakes/mutations in the dna just happen to produce something valuable enough for each of those generations to keep the new found trait then re-wire that mistake into the dominent gene passed to its offspring and this savy knowing what mistakes to keep and pass in what just so happens to be the right direction to produce the end result of functioning eyes at the end of half a million years strikes me as a bit speculative and missing a tad bit of evidence to support such a claim.

How can you be serious to tell me that over half a million years that generation after generation of "mistakes" that certain mistakes are utilized to "evolve" something like an eye for example yet the rest of the creature just keeps replicating without any change. First of all if the need for eyes was so vital for the creature in its environment for survival would not have the critters gone extinct some time far before the half a million years of mistakes that just happen to create the custom tailored product that the critter needed at that juncture of time and space half a million years later? Seems a bit over the top to have this kind of faith that mistakes are made each generation for half a million years and for what ever reason the critters with the right combination of cells that progress the design process of the eye forward happen to live and pass on genes to offspring while the others are don't pass it on. It is funny how these mistakes are not one time mistakes and seem to re-flash the dna if you will with the mistake as being the norm at least until the next generational update in which case it is willing to be further changed by a further mistake in this "process"....

It is a belief. Just like a belief in anything else.

Just admit you believe in evolution.
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #164 of 430
So what evidence is there to suggest how God made an eyeball?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #165 of 430
Quote:
I just fail to buy into the idea that over half a million years as he said that a bunch of changes/mistakes/mutations in the dna just happen to produce something valuable enough for each of those generations to keep the new found trait then re-wire that mistake into the dominent gene passed to its offspring and this savy knowing what mistakes to keep and pass in what just so happens to be the right direction to produce the end result of functioning eyes at the end of half a million years strikes me as a bit speculative and missing a tad bit of evidence to support such a claim.

How firm is your grasp on the workings of the telephone? How do our voices go thousands of miles across wires (or through the air) and come out the other side of the wire sounding exactly the same?

Lack of knowledge of ability to understand is not evidence against something.

Quote:
How can you be serious to tell me that over half a million years that generation after generation of "mistakes" that certain mistakes are utilized to "evolve" something like an eye for example yet the rest of the creature just keeps replicating without any change.

Incredulity is not an argument.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #166 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are saying that a beneficial variation/mutation is one which enables something to continue living and re-produce.

How do we determine the most beneficial variations/mutations? They exist in the populations that continue to live and reproduce.

How do they continue to live and reproduce (while others do not)? Because they have the most beneficial variations/mutations.

( Whew...I feel like I am talking in circles...oh...wait... )

Mutations, genetic variability in general, continue to exist because 1) they are continually generated 2) life isn't always so tough that every individual of a speicies dies unless the have gene X. 3) sexual reproduction allows us to have two copies of a gene, so one can be a bit wonky and we can live with it.
post #167 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
How firm is your grasp on the workings of the telephone? How do our voices go thousands of miles across wires (or through the air) and come out the other side of the wire sounding exactly the same?


Actually it is not a theory in fact it is observable fact which can be shown.

Telephone signals have many means of travel over distance. DA converters, modulation, electromagnitism, copper wire, fiber optics, etc.

It is not a belief it is a fact.

evolution I believe is a belief not a fact.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #168 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
This Film fails to explain how the eye was evolved. The scientist supposes that it could have evolved from many slight changes over time. There is no evidence of this however. Just faith that it is so.

Fellows

Actually that fvery short film doesn't mention a number of things. First, the eye has developed at least twice during evolution. The cephlapod eye (squid etc) and the vertabrate eye developed independentaly and are very similar, but not identicle in function. Then there are all those other kinds of eyes. I don't know were they got that half a million years stuff from, because they eye begins with light senstive cells way way way back in evolution. That was on big step to begin with. Putting these cells together with lens etc was another series of steps.
post #169 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
You'd like an example of evolution taking place over the last 200 years?

...
There are many more examples.

e.g.)

Bacteria that now like to eat penicillin fro breakfast

Every AIDS patient is a study in evolution as their viral burden changes to based on what kinds of drugs they'rebeing fed.

The dog.
post #170 of 430
**pulls sock out of mouth**

The problem is that 'mutation' somehow got substituted for 'information adding device'. Yes, it's a convienent black box, but it is still just another name for primeval chaos -- the supposed mother of all order.

In scientific terms chaos is not order, it is the opposite of order. The mutation speculation is as inconsistent an approach to the physical sciences, as postmodernism is to it's approach to existence. First you release all being into an unrelated collection of particulars, and then you irrationally claim that it all can be connected through an irrational, incoherent framework.

No offense, but that is nonsense, no matter what creationists claim. You can shift the amount of order you have no from one end of the toothpaste tube to the other, you can have viruses move DNA, you can disable systems only to discover redundant systems, you can have all the speciation and extinction you wish, and you can rework existing information all you want, but in the end, you cannot account rationally how the toothpaste got into the tube in the first place.

Evolution is just another religion and it's not even a consistent one.


**puts sock back in mouth**

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #171 of 430
I swore I wouldn't get into another evolution thread but I can't let the "eye" thing go unanswered. You do have to admit (fellow in particular) that we have already talked about this in extensio.

The problem you have with the eye, I think, is that you see it as a very complex tool that could'nt have "poped-out" by itself.

Thing is, you can deconstruct the eye into earlier versions that could have been useful even at that primitive state.

Say that, in a population of organism x without an eye, that one day, one of them has, lets say, an error when his genes are transcribed onto his descendant. This error, or mutation, is linked to the creation of a small patch of tissue on it's body. That small patch of tissue happen to react to light, by sending a signal to the organism's nervous system (or brain).

Now, that signal that comes from the patch makes it so that the organism can have an idea that the environnement is different.

Could sensing that an area is different from an other be an advantage? Yes, especially if learning that being near the "light", one can find more food.

You have to also see that if this is really an advantage, the organisms that have that gene will prosper and reproduce, eventually growing in numbers and dwarf in numbers the original organisms that didn't have the gene or the patch.

If this is possible and I say it is. Then one can also see that you can add other minute gene changes that correlate with changes such as the patch being able to notice colors (which helps in finding food or recognising enemies), a lens being added to get a sharper picture, etc...

it can all be added step by step to make the complete eye millions of years later.

why isn't this possible in your eyes?

side question, why is the squid eye in particular "better" than the human eye according to I.D. ?
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #172 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Then there are all those other kinds of eyes. I don't know were they got that half a million years stuff from, because they eye begins with light sensitive cells way way way back in evolution. That was one big step to begin with. Putting these cells together with lens etc was another series of steps.

Interesting leftover:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland#Function

Quote:
It is responsible for the production of melatonin, which has a role in regulating the circadian rhythm. Melatonin is a derivative of the amino acid tryptophan. The production of melatonin by the pineal gland is stimulated by darkness and inhibited by light. Light can be detected by the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) which has direct connections to the retina. Fibers extend from the SCN to the spinal cord into superior cervical ganglia and from there into the pineal gland.

In fact ancient amphibians such as Ichthyostega, which existed in the Late Devonian Period, had an orifice on the top of the skull through which the pineal gland was exposed and received light input. Over the course of time and for unknown reasons, the pineal gland migrated into the skull of later tetrapods and the skull orifice sealed. Modern birds and reptiles have been found to express the phototranducing pigment melanopsin in the pineal gland.
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
post #173 of 430
Quote:
Actually it is not a theory in fact it is observable fact which can be shown.

Mine was not an attempt to equate the two, merely to illustrate that one needn't understand something fully for that thing to be valid.

And here is the question, asked by Matvei, that I would love an answer to:
Quote:
why isn't this possible in your eyes?

That's the crux of this and it is what I mean but "Incredulity is not an argument." You cannot simply say "Impossible!" without providing a rationale as to why it is impossible.

We have evidence of evolution happening, we can watch it as it goes in various organisms and within various processes, so why not that?

We have no evidence of god at all, which is why we can simply dismiss "God created the eye" until evidence that it has, at the very least, happened in some other area is provided.

Do not make the mistake of saying, "I don't know therefore it can't be known."
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #174 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Ohh It "supposes" it could. I just fail to buy into the idea

Yes, you need to buy into it because you have to uphold the belief that God did it because if he didn't your whole world comes crashing round your feet. Even IF it were possible to provide you with a frame by frame acount of the evolution of an eye (everyone admits Science cannot do this - IF for no other reason that eyes/flesh decompose very quickly so you cannot get direct evidence), you still wouldn't buy into it. Yet you can (and expect people to take you seriously) buy into an idea formulated over 10,000 years of refinement by 'Pagan' 'Philosophers' that it happened by nothing else but 'magic' - that doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it, other than you want it to be true so bad.

Quote:

that over half a million years

He demonstrated it could be possible to do it this quickly, but its a fraction of the maximum time we have available for it to have happened

Quote:

as he said that a bunch of changes/mistakes/mutations in the dna just happen to produce something valuable enough for each of those generations to keep the new found trait then re-wire that mistake into the dominent gene passed to its offspring and this savy knowing

STOP RIGHT THERE. No doubt now we established you are willfully lying, that you 'know' an organism doesn't 'savy knowing' what 'mistakes' to keep hold of.


Quote:
what mistakes to keep and pass in what just so happens

STOP RIGHT THERE. No doubt now we established you are willfully lying, that you 'know' 'just so happens' is not random or by chance or 6 zillion to 1 odds.

Quote:

to be the right direction

Tut tut. Tell me where in the Theory of Evolution that it knows what the right direction is?

Quote:

to produce the end result of functioning eyes at the end of half a million years strikes me as a bit speculative and missing a tad bit of evidence to support such a claim.

No one denies it is speculation. It is Speculation based on the available facts, evidence, theory and hypothesis that is known to be observable, testable and repeatable.

As opposed to magic and witchcraft and cult membership.

Quote:

How can you be serious to tell me

How can you be serious to tell me that magic, superstition and witchcraft is the explanation?

Quote:

that over half a million years that generation after generation of "mistakes"

Mistakes usually get selected against. Adaptations are 'mistakes' that favour the organism that increase its chances of survival. But you know this.

Quote:

that certain mistakes are utilized to "evolve" something like an eye for example yet the rest of the creature just keeps replicating without any change.

BullShit. Tell me where in the theory, that the rest of the creature keeps replicating without any change. Thats CRAP and you know it.

Quote:

First of all if the need

There is no such thing as need.

Quote:

for eyes was so vital

There is no such thing as Vital.

Quote:

for the creature in its environment for survival would not have the critters gone extinct some time far before the half a million years of mistakes

Adaptations.

Quote:

that just happen to create the custom tailored

Implies a purposeful designer. Incorrect.

Quote:

product that the critter needed

There is no such thing as needed.

Quote:
[/b]
at that juncture of time and space half a million years later?[/b]

Minimum time 'speculated'. In reality there was much longer.

Quote:

Seems

If you have to rigidly enforce a dogmatic worldview.

Quote:

a bit over he top to have this kind of faith

Theory.

Quote:

that mistakes

Adaptations

Quote:

are made each generation for half a million years and for what ever reason the critters with the right combination of cells that progress the design

Adaptation.

Quote:

process of the eye forward happen to live and pass on genes to offspring while the others are don't pass it on.

Who said others didn't pass it on? The Creationist books. OK.

Quote:
It is funny how these mistakes are not one time mistakes and seem to re-flash the dna if you will

No I won't.

Quote:

with the mistake as being the norm at least until the next generational update in which case it is willing to be further changed by a further mistake in this "process"....

I'll be generous, and tell you why I ultimately reject your little preschool understanding of Evolutiuon above. You do not have a clue what you are talking about. It would be a 'wise' thing to do the following. Shut up, research, and reclaim some integrity

Quote:

It is a belief. Just like a belief in anything else.

Yawn....
so you are saying that 'belief structures' are invalid, wrong, and ridiculous. HEY. I AGREE.

Quote:
Just admit you believe in evolution.

OK, If you admit you believe in fairytales, witchcraft and magic.

Love
Marcus
post #175 of 430
The term "mistake" is misleading used in this context.

But I love fellowship anyway, of course. *hugs*
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #176 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Matvei

why isn't this possible in your eyes?


Hold on there just a sec...

Where did I say this "isn't possible"?

I said it is a belief.

I only suggested that people that buy into it admit that they believe it.

It is not a fact.

Possible? maybe maybe not. I will not pretend to have the answer until it can be proven. I do not believe it is provable today.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #177 of 430
Is it possible or not? no maybes please.
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #178 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
so you are saying that 'belief structures' are invalid, wrong, and ridiculous. HEY. I AGREE.


I never said that. I just don't share your belief. I most certainly never said that belief structures are invalid, wrong and ridiculous.

I wish you could be honest.

Don't twist what I say.

Next thing you know you will twist into a frog if you are not careful

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #179 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Matvei
Is it possible or not? no maybes please.

absolutely it is possible.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #180 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It attempts to be predictive about what happens with variations/mutations, natural selection and reproduction, as well as the emergence of new species.

Where? Certainly, we do this when we breed cattle or dogs or whatever, but that's not really "natural" selection.

Quote:
Now it has not attempted to be specifically predictive about what variations/mutations will occur (and/or be beneficial) nor what new species will emerge. That much is true.

OK.

Quote:
Well, actually, it is. You just aren't seeing (or won't) it.

Well, actually, it isn't tautological.

Quote:
What defines something as being a beneficial variation/mutation?

I explained this, earlier, in basic Darwinian terms: any mutation that helps a critter get food, get a mate, or defend itself.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #181 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I never said that. I just don't share your belief. I most certainly never said that belief structures are invalid, wrong and ridiculous.

You are trying very hard to push the idea that it is a belief. That Evolution is a religion. Dont BS me.

If that is the case, then tell me why it is so important for you to define Evolution as a belief or Religion?. Exactly for the reason I stated.

Quote:

I wish you could be honest.

You make me laugh. You couldn't post an honest thing about Evolution IF GOD COMMANDED YOU TO. Why is it you have to lie about Evolution? Do Lies instill a trust in people that I/they should listen to you? When do lies lead to God? Did Jesus approve of Lies? Is there a Commandment that says "Thou shalt Lie for the favour of God"?

Quote:

Don't twist what I say.

I didn't twist anything. I gave a reasonable explaination of why you need Evolution to be defined in the same context as a 'belief structure' or religion. That you try to do that is deceptive and dishonest.

Quote:

Next thing you know you will twist into a frog if you are not careful

And I'd still be more honest than thou

Quote:
Fellows

Marc.
post #182 of 430
Now, is there any evidence that would contradict this explanation?

Also, is if it is possible as you've said, then the eye's complexity can not be too important that it "requires" being created, as is, from the start, right?
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #183 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The problem is that describe isn't the same as explain. Looking at the horizon would likely cause one to describe the earth as flat.

OK.

Quote:
That description wouldn't predict or explain anything.

Where did all of this need for prediction and explanation come from, all of a sudden?

Quote:
This is the problem with evolution. It should be able to explain and it doesn't.

Why should it be able to explain?

Quote:
That is why I find it lacking. Punctuated equilibrium is again, something that is a nice description but it doesn't explain.

Again.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
post #184 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
You are trying very hard to push the idea that it is a belief. That Evolution is a religion. Dont BS me.

If that is the case, then tell me why it is so important for you to define Evolution as a belief or Religion?. Exactly for the reason I stated.



You make me laugh. You couldn't post an honest thing about Evolution IF GOD COMMANDED YOU TO. Why is it you have to lie about Evolution? Do Lies instill a trust in people that I/they should listen to you? When do lies lead to God? Did Jesus approve of Lies? Is there a Commandment that says "Thou shalt Lie for the favour of God"?



I didn't twist anything. I gave a reasonable explaination of why you need Evolution to be defined in the same context as a 'belief structure' or religion. That you try to do that is deceptive and dishonest.



And I'd still be more honest than thou



Marc.

Marc silly,,, I have not lied about evolution. I said it is possible just that at the time I do not believe it as do so many.

Where is the problem?

now be nice. I am not telling lies about evolution.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #185 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Matvei
Now, is there any evidence that would contradict this explanation?

Also, is if it is possible as you've said, then the eye's complexity can not be too important that it "requires" being created, as is, from the start, right?

I would have to see that evidence if it is there.

As complex as the eye is it is possible that it evolved.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #186 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Marc silly,,, I have not lied about evolution. I said it is possible just that at the time I do not believe it as do so many.

Where is the problem?

now be nice. I am not telling lies about evolution.

Fellows

Oh silly me,

for thinking that there were only two options.

1) You know and understand what the theory means, and what it does not try to explain, in which case your stupid caricature, ie Strawman, description of Evolution is an intentional lie, to deceive (yourself more than anyone)

2) You do not know or understand the theory, in which case your stupid caricature, ie Strawman, description of Evolution is formulated through willful ignorance, lack of integrity to find out (4 years Fellows???), Arrogance, and that upholding the dogma of your Cult in the selfish belief that pursuing avenues of debate which you know nothing about will make your God pleased with you. - while your stupidity will actively turn people against God, Jesus and get them sent to hell.

But either way it's all OK, because at the last moment, you claim that Evolution is possible (which I believe is just pathetic posturing), but you do not personally believe, sorry 'ACCEPT' it.

peace.

BTW, I am being Nice! because If the Bible is Correct, and I believe it is. One of us has to be a bit concerned that our actions will lead us/keep us to/in Hell. According to the Bible, lying and/or intentional ignorance is not looked upon too favourably.
post #187 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
so you're asking why frogs don't turn into Cows?

Well, ultimately, that is the conclusion we are to come to. But no. Don't be so obstuse. Second, I wasn't asking anything I was stating a simple fact that variations in relative populations does not provide evidence for the emergence of new species.
post #188 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
You are operating under the assumption that evolutionary scientists are actively seeking the origin of every species.

They are and they must. This doesn't mean they must identify everyone...but the theory is proposed as an exaplantion for how every specie has come into existence.
post #189 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
How firm is your grasp on the workings of the telephone? How do our voices go thousands of miles across wires (or through the air) and come out the other side of the wire sounding exactly the same?

Please tell me you are not using a man-made/intelligently-designed mechanism as any kind of argument for evolution?
post #190 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Oh silly me,

for thinking that there were only two options.

1) You know and understand what the theory means, and what it does not try to explain, in which case your stupid caricature, ie Strawman, description of Evolution is an intentional lie, to deceive (yourself more than anyone)

2) You do not know or understand the theory, in which case your stupid caricature, ie Strawman, description of Evolution is formulated through willful ignorance, lack of integrity to find out (4 years Fellows???), Arrogance, and that upholding the dogma of your Cult in the selfish belief that pursuing avenues of debate which you know nothing about will make your God pleased with you. - while your stupidity will actively turn people against God, Jesus and get them sent to hell.

But either way it's all OK, because at the last moment, you claim that Evolution is possible (which I believe is just pathetic posturing), but you do not personally believe, sorry 'ACCEPT' it.

peace.

BTW, I am being Nice! because If the Bible is Correct, and I believe it is. One of us has to be a bit concerned that our actions will lead us/keep us to/in Hell. According to the Bible, lying and/or intentional ignorance is not looked upon too favourably.

I said it is possible.

I wonder if I could get you to say it is possible that the Universe had a supernatural creator?

Science or no science, Evidence or no evidence.

I just wonder if I could get you to say that it is possible

Fellows..
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #191 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I was stating a simple fact that variations in relative populations does not provide evidence for the emergence of new species.

What do you think happens when a variation of a species becomes reproductively isolated?
post #192 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
e.g.)

Bacteria that now like to eat penicillin fro breakfast

Every AIDS patient is a study in evolution as their viral burden changes to based on what kinds of drugs they'rebeing fed.

The dog.

Still waiting for an example of speciation please. These are not.
post #193 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Where did all of this need for prediction and explanation come from, all of a sudden?



Why should it be able to explain?

So if it is not a predictive theory...nor a descriptive (explanatory) theory...what the heck is it?
post #194 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
What do you think happens when a variation of a species becomes reproductively isolated?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "reproductively isolated"? Can you elucidate a bit.

( Marc...I am NOT being smart ass...just trying to clarify your quesion. )
post #195 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
They are and they must. This doesn't mean they must identify everyone...but the theory is proposed as an exaplantion for how every specie has come into existence.

No it's not. The theory proposes and explanation of why the lifeforms roaming the planet today have been and will or will not continue to be successful, and how these lifeforms have come to possess their individual traits that have allowed to them to flourish or led to/are leading to their demise.

It makes no claims as to how everything came to be, only how life has changed and diversified throughout the millenia.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

I don't see anywhere in the definition of evolution where it suggests to provide any insight to creation. That's the entire point. Evolution does not deal with creation. It deals with diversification

You seem to think that maybe someone is proposing that for instance one day a dinosaur birthed a chicken. That is creation. It is not, however, what the theory of evolution proposes took place in any way, shape or form.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #196 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "reproductively isolated"? Can you elucidate a bit.

( Marc...I am NOT being smart ass...just trying to clarify your quesion. )

If the tip of Rhose Island broke off the wildlife on said tip would be isolated from the greater population of the US as a whole, thus their breeding population would be drastically reduced and the amount of diversity amongst that population lessened.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #197 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I said it is possible.

I wonder if I could get you to say it is possible that the Universe had a supernatural creator?

Science or no science, Evidence or no evidence.

I just wonder if I could get you to say that it is possible

Fellows..

I have been saying that for quite a while now.

But there is no evidence for it. I believe it ultimately because I want it to be true.

Context of Truth.

Science describes the natural world and its processes and mechanisms (lets not get picky over the word 'processes' again).

Science does not describe the spiritual or supernatural.

Spirituality describes the supernatural and Soul.

Spirituality does not describe the Natural or Science.

You have to chose.

Science is a lie and Spirituality is True. The natural world, universe and everything in it, including emotions, love, hate, fear and anger are all deceptions and lies

Science is True and Spirituality is a lie. The spiritual world, your soul, God, does not Exist , and you are a pointless function in a truth you can never hope to understand.

Science is True, and Sprituality is True. Understanding the Context of Truth each description of the truth ascribes too. There is no conflict, because each Truth is True to the context of the truth it ascribes too. Science truthfully describes the natural universe, Spirituality truthfully describes your soul. This may require a bit of readjustment in your personal understanding of the truth.

All three options are 'possible' truths.

God is true, and everything created is true. Unless you accept both truths, you have effictively ruled out God altogether.
post #198 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I would have to see that evidence if it is there.

As complex as the eye is it is possible that it evolved.

Fellows

Then the complexity of the eye is not an argument against evolution, right?
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #199 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "reproductively isolated"? Can you elucidate a bit.

( Marc...I am NOT being smart ass...just trying to clarify your quesion. )

I mean isolated reproductively.

( Im not trying to be a smart ass...the clue is in the definitions of the words.)
post #200 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
No it's not. The theory proposes and explanation of why the lifeforms roaming the planet today have been and will or will not continue to be successful, and how these lifeforms have come to possess their individual traits that have allowed to them to flourish or led to/are leading to their demise.

It makes no claims as to how everything came to be, only how life has changed and diversified throughout the millenia.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

I don't see anywhere in the definition of evolution where it suggests to provide any insight to creation. That's the entire point. Evolution does not deal with creation. It deals with diversification

You seem to think that maybe someone is proposing that for instance one day a dinosaur birthed a chicken. That is creation. It is not, however, what the theory of evolution proposes took place in any way, shape or form.

he knows that, I seem to remember he was 'educated' in force, en masse about 3 months ago. Sadly some variations of humans have (micro? macro?)evolved the skill of selectively forgetting facts that they do not like....im sure they'll go extinct one day
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism