After 2 days of mulling it over, this is the best response you can generate - that evolution works so slowly that we can’t see it happening now and also can’t prove it happened in the past? It would then, by definition, be outside the realm of science and a matter of faith, which is exactly what I’ve been saying about your own belief system. But Darwin’s theory had a scientific basis and with the technology he had available, it was quite legitimate. He understood the building blocks of life to be simple structures, but that has now scientifically been proven wrong. He even had a built-in disclaimer to that effect which was already mentioned - he now disavows his own theory from the grave. Darwin had an excuse for promoting the theory but you don’t - you should simply hang that “dishonest” tag around your own neck and move along.
P. S. to T.B.J: I don’t feel an obligation to clear the air everytime Uncle Tom or friends walks in the room and produces some flatulence, and it’s cumbersome trying to type and hold my nose at the same time. And besides, since he already knows the errors in his position(s), answering becomes more like throwing pearls before swine, which the Bible discourages.
It is a silly silly and very silly thing for you to claim others are believing unreasonably without evidence. Not to mention a bit hypocritical.
For you to say you don’t accept evolution as fact is one thing. Just your opinion and you’re welcome to it. For you to make scientific claims about evolution that you then cannot defend or support with evidence is just ridiculous. Your comments laced with mild insults are childish and unworthy. You’re not defending your faith. You’re just embarrassing yourself. If you must cling to your own beliefs then fine. Perhaps you shouldn’t spend time on a message board where reasonable and intelligent people expect reasonable and intelligent responses and a modicum of evidence to support your claims.
Sorry to have offended your fragile sense of what constitutes “reasonable and intelligent” conversation. Perhaps it would help if you just pretend that I’m a simple boy with a couple of real simple questions about a belief system that I’ve never heard of. All I ever asked for were some examples from the present day to verify your proposition and some proof in the fossil record to back it up. So far the only response has been the shaking of heads and the clucking of tongues at how ignorant I am and some vague references to countless volumes of books supposedly filled with evidence to support it. I remain kind of like the little boy in the crowd shouting “the king has no clothes!” Since no one can really dispute the matter, I guess you have to use the old defense: “he’s just too ignorant (and silly) to really understand these high and lofty matters”.
On the other hand, my claims about the Bible’s veracity are concrete and real - the Bible is supported by history, archaeology, by the personal testimonies of millions of believers past and present, and by the one thing that no other book has: clear and verifiable prophecies that have been and are being fulfilled as we speak. (over 300 of them fulfilled just by Christ Himself). Only the willfully blind ignore its evidence and the evidence about the ressurection of its Author - while instead putting their faith in a dead mans unproven theory. The fact that even the dead man disavows his theory from the grave is a futher witness against your unfounded beliefs. Perhaps all this offends the sensibilites of those who have chosen the clean-looking paths of gnosticism, but to those who follow the Truth wherever it might lead, it’s the narrow but only Way. Perhaps someday you’ll humble yourself, discard your pseudo-knowledge, open your eyes, and recognize that your faith is indeed similar to having trusted in a naked dead man while he’s being led about on a horse. Our Leader, however, backed up His claims by coming back from the dead after accomplishing His mission - He remains with us as a Helper and Guide.
The speed of evolution is directly proportional to the breeding cycle of animals. (Actually, inversely proportional.) We’ve seen evolution in action for things like bacteria and viruses, for fruit flies and even rodents. There has been speciation observed in lab mice in isolated populations. Of course we can’t directly observe evolution for species whose generation time is close to ours. Some of the examples in the talkorigins faq I cited a while ago (and you blew off) are for life with short generations.
Things in the past are not outside the realm of science - this is a common untruth from those who either have no idea how science works or who wish to pretend cosmology is not scientific. The crucial factor is whether you can make predictions, falsifiable predictions, about what you expect to find. The Big Bang theory predicted a certain level of cosmic background radiation, my friend Arno Penzias got a Nobel Prize because he stumbled across this, and confirmed the prediction. The recent Nobel Prize in Physics was given for finding evidence of inflation. Evolution predicts the kind of things we should find in the fossil record, such as an ancestor of a whale. Surprise - we found it. So, who is more qualified to speak on what science is - Bible man of NAS and Nobel prize winners? Hmm, hard one.
Actually, Darwin did not really understand the building blocks of life. One thing you creationists don’t understand is that no scientist’s writing is holy writ. When Darwin wrote, genetics was not understood. He give his theory about how genetic traits are passed on, which is totally wrong. The amazing thing is that how it really works is far more supportive of evolution than Darwin’s idea. We know how mutations occur. We’ve found the fossil evidence that Darwin predicted we’d find. What evidence do you think falsifies evolution?
Also, do you admit that your definition of macroevolution is totally bogus?
When Tom made a mistake, he admitted it. I don’t recall you doing likewise. I hope you don’t think Jesus is telling you about evolution. I’ve never been a Christian, but I don’t think you guys think Jesus lies. We all know who does lie, so maybe you’ve been chatting with someone on the wrong side. Think it over.
There is no historical or archaeological evidence for the Exodus, the sojourn in the desert, or the Davidic kingdom extending to the reaches claimed in Kings and Chronicles. Passages in Daniel refer to Darius the Mede for whom there is no historical record (and for which there is no historically recorded Median interruption in the transfer of power fron the Chaldeans to the Persians).
There is no historical record for a census of the whole (Roman) world ordered by Caesar Augustus and the implied terms of the census (that each man return to his ancestral home) not only make no sense but are not mentioned for any other census recorded by the Romans.
Note that I am not asserting any errors in the bible. However, you have claimed that your claims for “veracity” are “concrete and real” and that “the Bible is supported by history, archaeology.” In fact, while there are occasional places that the bible does reflect history, there are many more where there is no historical support. Your claim is in error.
Dude, besides being highly uncouth, using this angle to insult somebody opens you wide to the same attack.
When you can prove that this spirit speaking to you under the name of Jesus is not actually named “Murray” and is merely setting forth for you a convincing and consistent collection of lies and deception for the express purpose of making you post emphatic assertions on message boards, only at that point will you have a leg to stand on when you cite your inner demons as justification for insulting the motives and opinions of others.
Well, it all depends on the individual, I suppose. To me, the one you appropriately call “Uncle!” and his friends show a sweet light of reaon. If you have the “delusion” (Sorry if I’ve violated your copyright on this word) that this is flatulence, it is only YOUR problem, not theirs or mine.
Even if it turned out somehow that there is no (macro)evolution, I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes. You have been corrected on many points, from the history of Purgatory to various items in your long list of Creationist non-debate points.
I see from a quick glance that Tom for one has debunked your jazz some more. Unfortunately I must leave and enjoy your flame-broiling tomorrow.
I hope this wasn’t misunderstood! It was not meant ot encourage or condone name-calling. It was a reference to "crying ‘Uncle’ " after losing in arm-wrestling or some such. No doubt you’ve heard the expression, but I wanted to make sure.
I don’t have to pretend anything. I have a fairly reasonable assessment of who you are and what you know. I also don’t have a *fragile * sense of what is reasonable or intelligent. You think making assertion after assertion without offering any evidence is somehow defending the faith. You think denying the evidence you’ve been given or simply avoiding it is defending the Truth. Neither is true or reasonable by any definition. You are free to believe whatever you choose. Keep in mind you came here of your own volition and entered a **debate
**. In doing so you agreed to certain guidelines and common expectations that are asked of all. So far you have failed to meet those standards and expectations. There’s nobody to blame for that except yourself. I for one don’t think you are too ignorant or that the matters at hand are too lofty for you. Your assertions probably get plenty of nods of approval among those with similar beliefs. Here a little more is expected. You simply haven’t offered anything accept one unreasonable assertion after another without evidence and snide cutsey insults that are no substitute for real substance.
Again, nobody but yourself to blame.
You mentioned mentioned millions of believers past and present as if their testimony was solid evidence to the Truth you speak of. The plain truth is that even among those millions of believers there are widely varied beliefs and many of them that worship the same “son of God” you do , strenuously disagree with some of the “Truth” you represent. Add to that millions of others who worship the same God of Abraham but who disgree with you. Then think about millions of others who seek a different path to the truth. In strictly a numbers game it is not arrogance and pride to doubt the millions you speak of. It is foolish to think that by sheer numbers your beliefs must be true. The numbers and even generations of numbers are against you. Jesus was certainly in the minority of the religious practitioners of his day. That majority thought they must know the truth as well. Their pride and belief in tradition blinded them to the truth he taught. To put it in his words.
As usual, you added your own anti-Bible spin to my post. The Bible’s historical collection of 66 books by 40 authors, passed down from generation to generation is authoritative and provides adequate proof in itself for the facts therein, my point was that wherever outside historical or archaeological proof has been discovered, it has always supported the Biblical account. And indeed, current archaeology is catching up to the Bible on a daily basis, recent discoveries verify the existence of Pontius Pilate and there is a current dig for Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. The fact that outside confirmation of certain people and events in the Bible has yet to be discovered disproves none of its historical accounts, except in the minds of those who would never have enough such proof to believe anyway. Those who do believe in Christ and His teachings accept the testimony of the New Testament writers as they also recorded Christ’s complete endorsement of the Old Testament - He verified its authenticity by quoting from it, teaching from it, and commanding that it be obeyed as God’s spoken Word.
Your post is an example of why, except occasionally when others might reference them, I’ve stopped considering your posts - they typically lack basic objectivity and integrity. Another example of such was your response to my previous post stating that the universal law of entropy was an obstacle for the processes needed for evolution to be viable. You responded by denying that entropy existed, but when confronted with the most glaring refutation (the sun), you then claimed that entropy does exist, but only from the sun onward into space! Your goal is obviously to distract others, by all means possible, from the reality of Christ, His ressurection, and the eternal life that comes only through Him - and of course, the obvious target is the collection of Bible books which testify of Him.
The above, coupled with your double standard of consistently using name-calling in your posts while flashing your “moderator” badge whenever you get a “right back atcha” response, reveals some character issues that should be resolved before holding yourself out as an advocate of truth.
Not yet, but I’ll look over your information (and “bogus” is such a harsh word). At this point, some misunderstandings appear to be issues of semantics (I say adaptation, you say evolution), and due to interpretation of data according to world view ie, I look at the Grand Canyon and see incontrovertible evidence for the Genisis flood and you see evolution at work in the realm of geology. Similarly, extrapolating processes of billions of years from observing common adaptation and then concluding that it accounts for the beginnings of life, is a big leap and looks like faith to me. And regardless, one of my main points is that the Biblical account is incompatible with evolutionary beliefs, they are mutually exclusive. The real ongoing problems are not the differences in beliefs but the vain attempt by some to combine them.
Let’s forget about adaptation. We can quibble about the relationship of adaptation to evolution, but if we get to that point, we’ll be pretty far along. Your macroevolution definition is indeed bogus. I don’t know if you mean frogs will sprout wings over a single generation, or over many. If over many, it might be possible - after all dinosaurs sprouted wings, but it would require a lot of other changes - lighter bones, more streamlining, etc. I believe there are some tree frogs that glide - perhaps some day they will have a set of descedants who will fly. But evolution has no goal and no purpose (which is what really pisses you off about it, right?) so it is hardly a certainty. And please. monkeys becoming men shows you understand this stuff at a pre-K level.
Now, you have another misconception. You can see whatever you want when you look at the Grand Canyon. The test is if you can predict what you will find next. Flooders make up convoluted explanations for what scientists have found, but have never successfully predicted anything. I know all about hydrologic sorting, which supposedly explains why fossils are found in the order that they are. Try to, in your own words, explain why heavy fossils get found between light fossils in a way that makes sense.
Let me be the first to tell you in this thread that evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life. No one claims they know how that happened yet, even when we can create life in a lab it doesn’t mean it happened in nature the same way. My guess is that a simple self-reproducing but non-living molecule formed, and then “evolved” as errors in reproduction let to the more efficient growth. Eventually it became a precursor to RNA. When it became life is kind of fuzzy - are prions life? Are viruses? Where this happened, whether at vents, clay, or in the open ocean, I don’t have clue.
Here is how evolution works in very simple terms. Children are different from parents, right? Some of the differences are from genetic diversity, some are mutations, which are mostly neutral, often bad, but sometimes good. Since those ina generation are different, they will have different chances of reproducing. Those traits which on the average favor reproduction will be more heavily represented in the next generation. Eventually, if you wait long enough or if you isolate a subpopulation, some of these new traits will prevent the current generation from interbreeding successfully with the population in another region or in the past. Then you have a new species.
In computer science terms, you have search space of all possible genetic types. Not everything is possible, you’ll never see an elephant fly or King Kong. Evolution slowly explores this space, step by step, cutting off paths that are unsuccessful, but perhaps not finding the optimal path (our eyes have a buggy design) and not finding all possible paths.
Your first quoted statement changes what you initially said to which I responded. The final clause in your first quoted statement is false. Your next quoted statement is a red herring; even the most rabid bible haters do not claim that the entire work is invented. Pontius Pilate has historical references that far precede any recent discoveries, and I do not recall anyone every challenging that he existed.
However, the claim, for example, that there was ever a “Darius the Mede” is simply false and is not supported by archaeology or history.
No. This exchange is an example of you misusing words and concepts. You claimed that the "universal law of entropy stands against " evolution. However, that actual “universal law of entropy” is The Second Law of Thermodynamics stating: The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
The Earth is not an “Isolated thermodynamic system.”
My response to your unscientific claim was that “we could start with this false statement: The physical laws regarding entropy would only be relavent in a closed system. Earth is not a closed system, receiving a constant supply of new energy from the sun every second of every day. Therefore, an appeal to “entropy” is baseless and without merit.”
Earth constantly gains new energy from the sun. Your (genuine or pretended) failure to understand that allows you to make a false claim that I denied entropy existed. I did not. I correctly noted that the Earth is not a closed (i.e. isolated) system. The “universal law of entropy” simply has no bearing on evolution on Earth (as long as we receive energy from the sun).
Go back and read the thread. Despite what I perceive as your basic dishonesty in support of your beliefs and despite the generally hostile character (on both sides) of our exchanges, I have not resorted to name calling and I only cautioned you once you had stepped directly over the line for the second time.
Just a simple question. Please help me understand why you think evolution violates the “universal law of entropy” more than the growth of a seed does? I don’t see how what you are saying follows even under you distorted view of thermodynamics. Evolution is birth and death and mutation which might be the result of a gene being hit by a cosmic ray, something we can measure. There is nothing else.
(Yes, definitely keep the science questions really simple, and you keep forgetting that multiple choice is preferred over essay questions).
For evolution to be viable there has to be billions of years available for these admittedly slow processes to occur. Observing the current rate of entropy in the universe simply doesn’t allow for that kind of time. Further, just considering the example of our sun at the current rate of 700,000 tons of hydrogen burned per second, there is no way it has been in existence for those exponential time periods unless you postulate a much bigger (and hotter) sun in the beginning that has gradually burned down to the current size. You would have to concurrently attribute to every life form, and probably geological features as well, the ability to withstand very high heat and then posulate that they gradually lost their heat resistant qualities with each successive degradation of the sun’s size and temperature. I’m not sure if any of you die-hard evolutionists have ever proposed that or not but one thing is certain: our existing sun and other heat sources in the universe as well, couldn’t possibly have existed for the vast time periods that evolution requires - we would have been in a deep freeze eons ago. It’s just another of the many problems that evolutionists must overcome as they continue to try and make this theory sprout wings and fly.
I’m no math wiz but I thought it might be fun to try the math:
700,000 tons = 6.35x10[sup]8[/sup] kg
mass of the sun = 2x10[sup]30[/sup] kg
sun is 71% hydrogen
mass of sun’s hydrogen = 1.42x10[sup]30[/sup] kg
1.42x10[sup]30[/sup] kg ÷ 6.35x10[sup]8[/sup] kg/sec = 2.24x10[sup]21[/sup] seconds
2.24x10[sup]21[/sup] seconds ÷ 31,556,926 seconds/year = 7.10x10[sup]13[/sup] years.
Using Bible man’s 700,000 assumption (and assuming my math is correct), then it would take over 7 trillion years to for the sun to consume its hydrogen. So he’s giving evolution a lot more time to occur than even science does.
Ah yes, but when you burn hydrogen, you get water; if the sun had been around for more than, oh, exactly 6,000 years, it would have doused itself by now. Can’t you science people understand that?