Heh…I’d rather see him read The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, myself. But then, his brain might melt…
Oh, and Nolies, how about a little tit-for-tat? You’ve raised scattershot objections to assorted concepts, and they have been addressed by various posters. On the other hand, various posters have raised objections to creation “science” / creationism, and you have yet to address them. jayjay asked for any positive evidence for creationism. Polycarp asked a number of questions, I asked how you reconcile observed dispersal patterns of organisms through time vs. the post-Flood “central point” dispersal which should be observed had the Flood actually occured as recorded in Genesis, etc.
So howzabout some answers frmo the pro-creation side of things?
I think you’ve left out a few options there.
Marduk did it(Babylonian creation myth)
Obatala did it(African creation myth)
White Body, Blue Body, Black Body, and Yellow Body did it(Navajo Creation myth)
Odin, Vili, and Ve did it(Norse Creation myth)
Veda did it(Indian(Hindu) creation myth)
Tu-chai-pai did it(Comanche creation myth)
Ziene did it(Chinese(Miao) creation myth)
A large selection of gods and “how they did it” can be found here. I don’t have a problem with you debunking evolution(although you’re not doing a very good job at the moment) but your blithe assertion that the other alternative is a simple and easy explanation certainly seems to ignore the questions of “which god” and “how”.
Enjoy,
Steven
Oh, c’mon! You could at least have included one of the “life came into being when the Sky God ejaculated and some of his potent semen fell onto the fertile Earth” myths – at least add a little erotic fillip into the mix! 
It was Darwin’s Finches that got Darwin started asking himself a questions similar to the last one in the quote.
For Nolies who might never have heard the story or thought about the implications:
The finches are indigenous to the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Ecuador in the Pacific Ocean. The various species of Galapagos finches are clearly related to similar finches along the western coast of South America. There are numerous species identified mainly by differences in their beaks which are separately fitted to the particular species’ diet. The bird’s habitats are all in the same place but the species do not interbreed. I think it isn’t positive that they can’t, but they don’t so they are considered separate species using the usual definition of “species” and the one Darwin was talking about.
The birds are closely fitted to their particular environment, food source, etc. in the Galapagos and as I understand it, Darwin, who had started out to enter the clergy when he was younger, began to wonder if God had originally created Middle Eastern birds who were suited to the Galapagos and how, after the flood, the birds had gotten there. Perhaps, just possibly, they were derived from the mainland finches and their varies species had arisen through adaptation to various environments in order to survive.
Somewhere along in here Darwin wrote to a colleague that he was beginning to think that species weren’t immutable after all and added that the idea, “… is almost like confessing to murder.” However, being a good scientist, his ideas followed where the evidence took him, and there was a lot of it besides the finches.
Nolies, I’m genuinely confused. Why are these two mutually exclusive? What’s wrong with the notion that God did it using evolution over time? For the third or fourth time, do you consider it impossible to accept evolution and still be a devout Christian? If so, why?
No, at this point I don’t expect you to answer. You’re apparently too busy setting strawmen on fire to answer a serious question from another Christian.
CJ
I thought it was a bit much for a first step. I mean, you could use that thing as ballast in a superyacht.
And to be honest, I haven’t read it yet. But it’s on the list.
Stranger
How about this:
Okay, it’snot really erotic, except for sneezing fetishists, but it does involve bodily fluids. Ah…any opportunity to slip in a Hitchhiker’s quote is a good day.
Stranger
Oh, it’s a brain-melter regardless who reads it. And he seems to be very fond of the words “exegesis” and “hagiography”.
I just mentioned it because it was part of a two-fer deal on that Amazon link.
Ironically enough, the “Great Green Arkleseizure” theory is exactly how I rebutted the last time someone tried to witness to me with the “Intelligent Design” approach. They went on about how complex the universe is and how how it was obviously the work of some sort of super-human entity. I just nodded along and said “Yep, that Great Green Arkleseizure really is something, isn’t it?”
Enjoy,
Steven
Yeah, but I have some real doubts about it.
I mean, how do they know the hankerchief is white?
Stranger
Actually, I’m impressed that **Nolies **has actually stuck it out for 5 pages. But he’s definitely losing coherence; I’m sure that The Structure of Evolutionary Theory would push him over the edge. You really want that on your conscience, Finch?
Nolies, you do realize that if you had your one-on-one deabate, you’d never get away with all the dodging and weaving. Your counterpart would expect his/her questions to actually be answered; your track record of doing so in this thread is not good.
One irony that I’m sure has escaped you so far – you started this thread with a rant that scientists take things on faith and that well-established principles like the geologic time scale are just made up. Your latest rant is about how scientists haven’t settled on an explanation of exactly how life began. Can you see how the latter situation disproves your original statement? Scientists take *nothing *on faith – where insufficient evidence exists to solve a question, the question remains unsolved, until such time as more evidence or a better explanation is found. All of the science that you claim is mere presumptions has been thorough tested, vetted, discussed, revised as needed when new data arose, etc. Anyone who wishes to come along and challenge such well established theory had better have some amazing new evidence, or a heck of a good new theory. You have provided neither.
Just to keep us amused while Nolies quote mines some more creationist myths, couldn’t it be said that much of this variation is the result of previous mutations that injected variation into the genome? Yes, there is variation based on in utero environment, and on exterior environmental conditions, but these will not propagate through generations. Stronger individuals, for instance, might have inherited genes that more effectively process food, which came from a previous mutation. Ditto variation in color and patterns which might not provide a selective advantage in a given environment.
After all, all individuals of the first life, whatever you want to call it, would be pretty much identical until the mutations began, right?
Again, just in case you missed it, Nolies:
I accept your offer of a one-on-one debate.
We cannot, unfortunately, do it in precisely the way you requested. Specifically, existing Board practice will not allow a thread in which only two people are allowed to post. However, I’m sure this can be addressed easily. Firstly, the folks here are generally respectful, and I believe will accomodate us; secondly, we can further secure privacy by attaching a notice to the beginning of the thread and including reminders at the top or bottom of each post.
I trust this will be satisfactory.
I’m happy to begin laying out the formal groundrules whenever you are. My initial suggestions are as follows:
[ul]
[li]You, as claimant, may make the first post.[/li][li]Each subsequent post will consist of two sections–a rebuttal of the previous post followed optionally by a new point. I think this might help keep us from speaking at cross-purposes.[/li][li]Outside assistance is acceptable. However, all content must be either in our own words or reasonably cited.[/li][li]After ten posts, each of use will have an option for a single “closing arguments” post.[/li][li]I like your idea of a 48-hour time limit. Since that means we could be going for a nicely Biblical 40 days (excluding closing statements), I think extensions should be limited. Perhaps we may each request two 24-hour extensions over the course of the discussion.[/li][li]The debate may be ended at any point by mutual agreement. Missing a deadline will be considered a concession.[/li][li]After completion, the thread may remain open for comments from the community.[/li][/ul]
All of these are negotiable, of course. Let me know what you think, and we can solidify the rules and get started.
I think your idea is absolutely terrific, and I’m looking forward to discussing these issues with you.
Yer pal,
-andros-
I’m not sure if I understand the question…it seems to me that what you say is exactly the result of NS: variations that prove more beneficial become part of the genome. In other words, this generation’s mutations become the “base” genome for future generations. Or, in other other words, today’s plesiomorphies are yesterday’s apomorphies.
It should probably also be specified up front what exactly is being debated. As you are well aware, debates with creationists tends to be all over the place, from cosmology, to abiogenesis, to critiques of radiometric dating and geology, to physics (e.g., 2nd Law of Thermo) – while seldom actually touching upon concepts that directly pertain to evolutionary biology (and even seldom-er provding evidence for creationism). Given only 10 posts per side, a narrow focus would be highly beneficial. I leave it to you both to figure out how to deal with deviations from the topic.
I agree, DF, and I strongly considered adding a bullet to that effect.
To take an example, I think that the issue of how and why abiogenesis is a completely different topic, in scientific terms, from evolution is itself subject to debate. It’s hard to divorce the two in a creation-oriented framework–and perhaps it’s impossible.
But I think it’s best to allow Nolies to propose the specific topic for discussion, since this was his idea. If he wishes to discuss cosmology or abiogenesis, I’ll simply address what I can.
And I would say that whether nor not he provides evidence for anything depends entirely on the topic at hand. I’m happy to discuss current scientific thinking about evolution per se, without needing a viable replacement, if that’s how it goes. Of course, that discussion will unboubtedly entail the issue of scientific “best-fit.”
Eh, no worries.
Oh, one other thing, Nolies . . . we might want to define some terms before we begin. Or not, not a big deal. Either way, I think we need to make sure that we define our terms well within our arguments.
I thought it was Azathoth who did it? Or am I thinking of Yog-Sothoth?
Sometimes it’s hard to keep the Old Ones straight.
That’s because there is no definitive theory of abiogenesis.
No. Evolution REQUIRES that there be descent with heredity. Almost by definition, evolution cannot explain the ORIGIN of descent with heredity.
Nonsense. Evolution functions utterly regardless of what the origins of life were.
Now THAT is a disingenuous argument. But this has already been better fielded by others.
This is a basic misunderstanding of how genes and mutations tend to work. The changes caused by mutations really ARE small and accumulate very gradually. It ISN’T generally a matter of a single mutant that is the only one to have a particular very sudden and dramatically new trait. Rather, there tends to be a whole range of related variations in a particular direction that spontaneously accumulate in a population and then get selected for. Single mutational jumps can happen, but they are rare for precisely the sorts of reasons you note. However, they are certianly not impossible, and it’s actually fairly likely that a “really good trick,” once hit upon, will tend to be abundant.
That is exactly what I thought. I’m afraid that people who don’t get that think of life as having begun with a wide variation, and that mutations are something special - not that mutations are the source of the variation. I don’t think they really get the unbroken chain from the first replicator, and thus may misunderstand really basic stuff.