Evolution and science...

Great Debates
241

I have a life, which some of you must not. I can’t nor do I really wish to come to this bastion of those who society has lost on a regular basis.

I just caught up on all the fallacy posted by the Evolutionist here and I will answer those who come to mind as I type this. .

Simply because scientist BELIEVE that evolution is fact doesn’t make it so. It by no means, means that they have proven it by scientific experimentation. They are human and they have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth. They earn their living by deceiving you all. Even Gorbels (sp) new that if you tell a big enough lie often enough people will believe it. There is also a thing known, as academic or social pressure in which to say otherwise would label them as some sort of crack pot/

You can be a Christian and believe that life evolved you will be a weak spiritually immature one. Or you can think that your are a Christian and believe in evolution, (but there will be many on that day who will say Lord, Lord look at all the good works we did in your name, and I will say to them away from me you evil doers I never knew you and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.) Which are you?
ABiogenesis is not a red herring, as you try to deflect the truth of it being fundamental to evolution even being remotely possible. If no natural scientifically observed process could explain abiogenesis then the creation Model fits. Thus we have established that since life is here and it was created now we just need to establish that that creation was all at once or over 6 days. Now for you all who think that it is unreasonable for God to use the same basic principles that code chimp DNA to create humans. Why would he not? Since so many of the basic functions of life are encoded in them. All of life has DNA of some sort, which shows the consistency of using a building block. If you are going to build a better car do you start with something different? No you take what works and add to it and refine it.

The Darwinian observation of finches doesn’t take into account the number of possibilities of colors and beak shape already inherent in the genes of just two finches. Two humans can have somewhere around 7 million children if that was possible, and not two would be the same. That is just the rich genetic diversity inherent in the gene pool from the already established act of creation. I saw a study where they put color bands on the legs of finches. Those finches whose bands didn’t match were not chosen for breeding. The female chose those who did even when there were multiple colors on both legs. So with this type of selection based on some visual cue by the female it is easy to see how the different types of finches came to be from the original created finches. They have not become crows all you are observing in the rich genetic diversity of gene pool. But since you are so desperate for evidence for evolution you use this as evidence and then run with it…
Inbreeding with in any species can render it unable to breed with others of the same kind. It has not evolved, it has only lost genetic diversity which after enough time causes it to not be able to breed back to the main gene pool. With the natural process of aborting offspring that the DNA code sees, as genetically wrong, the main gene pool doesn’t recognize any more as valid so there is a conflict and a spontaneous abortion occurs. Specieation (sp) is not evolution

Evolution; being a scientifically observed change from one form of life to another. And the fundamental creation of this life Abiogenesis is needed to then change, other wise we would be putting the cart before the horse. To debate evolution through some supposed natural scientificlly observed process is futile if we cannot establish abiogenisis as accuring. You can try to compartmentalize this if you like but it only shows weakness of your theory…

Life form; the characteristic morphology of a mature organism.

Life; The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

I have work to do but I will be back, remember that I am just a guest here till the 24th of march…

242

T-16 days…

243

Next time you read the Bible, try getting beyond the Book of Genesis. Matthew is a good place to start. See how many of Jesus’s instructions on how to behave toward your fellow man you intentionally violated in that post alone.

If you claim to be an example of “Christian,” it’s no wonder that people have rejected it.

244

There is no such thing as an Evolutionist.

Simply because you believe creationism is a fact does not make it so. The difference is, Evolution is supported by mountains or real scientific evidence.

Neither you nor I has access to the complete and absolute truth. To believe anything else smacks of hubris. Why do you believe your interpretation of the bible is superior to the many other Christians who post here?

245

Simply because creationists BELIEVE that creationism is fact doesn’t make it so. By no means is it proven with scientific experimentation, or any experimentation at all. They are human and they have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth. Somtimes, a creationist will earn their living by deceiving the deluded. Even Dembski knew that if you tell a big enough lie often enough people will believe it. In some circles, they would even be called a crackpot.

Look, I don’t mean to make a childish arguement, but your post in every way was applicable to creationism and in every way was not applicable to evolution. Dopers have given you more than enough evidence, I don’t see what else you want from this “debate.”

Furthermore, you don’t believe evolution has been observed? I present to you Avida, software that allows you to witness evolution first-hand. Download it, set parameters, and witness how the species are changing over time. That is all evolution is.

246

Is Godwin’s Law violated when the speling is so bad it takes a moment to realize that evolutionists (a term I don’t mind since it’s a lot less typing than “the vast majority of scientists who recognize evolution to be a process at work all around us”) are being compared with Nazis?

247

Which one was that? to judge not by mere apperance but with a righteous judgement. ? Jesus came only to Israel and spoke to them only. He taught the Law and not grace. He was condeming of those who rejected him and his message of repentance.

Why do I believe that my interpretation of the bible is correct. Because it is coherent and most Christians believe in predestination. They are doomed to fail from the very begining of trying to interpret the bible.

There are not mountians of scientific evidence for evolution. There are mountians of postulations and secondary theorys. But NO scientific evidence. You know what that means don’t you? If it is science then you can do the experiment and I can do it and get the same result. Could you please show me who did the experiment that made one life form change to another? And who duplicated it? There are plenty of neat experiments and discoveries that people try to use to prop up the straw man of evolution. My favorite discovery is the enzime that runs up and down the DNA whose only function is to repair mutations. Counter to the evolutionary model isn’t it…? Isn’t discovery wonderful…

248

Wow, I usually try to stay out of debates (well, I stay out of posting in general cause I’m such a lurker) for a lot of reasons, but I feel like I have to say something to this post.

Well thank God most people don’t accept evolution just cause scientists believe it to be! I myself can’t deny it for a number of reasons, including observed speciation, the implications of the fossil record, the sheer common sense of natural selection, etc. There are a lot of reasons why I accept evolution as scientific fact, just like how there are lots of reasons why I accept the earth goes around the sun as fact.

Honestly, this is kind of offensive. I’m a Christian, and I accept evolution (hell, I’m majoring in it) and I don’t like your implication that I must either be spiritually weak or a hypocrite destined for hell. You don’t win people over with personal attacks you know.

The validity of evolution certainly doesn’t rest on the validity of abiogenesis. God could very well have created primitive life on earth and allowed natural processes to evolve multicellular organisms. He could have done any number of things. He could also be a big liar and created a world in 6 days 6,000 years ago that had all the appearance of old age and naturally evolved life. My faith tells me God isn’t a big liar, and so I don’t find that option acceptable.

As a Christian, I believe the Bible is true. This doesn’t mean I have to believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that man was literally created out of dust. But I do believe that there is much truth in the stories we read in Genesis, even if it’s not historical or scientific truth. Fundamentalism does the Bible, and God, a great disservice. It strips the Bible of its poetry and turns it into a textbook full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

249

And Mme Gaudere strikes again. :frowning:

250

Zebra sha sha how about this one to watch evolution http://www.kgov.com/evolve/download.htm

251

  1. What the hell does that have to do with evolution?

  2. And where the hell did you get the idea most Christians believe in predestination?

252

.

Of course you do. Since you have choosen to be believe a fairy tale and not the saviour that you claim to believe in, you know which you are. Which is why you are offended. You know who the bible called the rock of offence don’t you?

Natural selection doesn’t make a new life form can’t you get that through your head. No matter how much time you give it.

253

One

Two. (I assume you mean Josef Gobbels.)

Three.
What? See, I have this rule–if you perniciously string three fallacies together as an argument, you aren’t honest enough to bother debating. Let’s take a walk though your park, shall we:

[ol]
[li]Argumentum ad hominem: Insulting your opponent does not validate your arguments.[/li][li]Argumentum ad odium: Equivilating your opponent to a fascist does not validate your arguments. It also invokes Godwin’s Law.[/li][li]Argumentum ad ignorantium: Claiming that a lack of explicit evidence of abiogenesis destroys the observation of evolution and the theory of natural selection is bunk, and in no way bolsters an argument for Christian-flavored Creationism.[/li][/ol]

As for the rest of your arguments, they stem from an almost complete lack of understanding of zoology, genetics, geology, chemistry, physics, and basic biology. Until you make some effort to educate yourself on these topics so that you really aren’t worth addressing on a technical level. Again, I offer to you the challenge; I’ll read a book of your choosing on Creationism if you’ll do the same regarding evolutionary theory.

Is that a promise, or a threat, or ? :dubious:

Stranger

254

I’m sorry NoLies, from my perspective your statement is indistinguishable from hubris.

That is not the definition of scientific evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

“Once a prediction is made, an experiment is designed to test it. The experiment may seek either confirmation or falsification of the hypothesis. Yet an experiment is not an absolute requirement. In observation based fields of science actual experiments must be designed differently than for the classical laboratory based sciences.”

Also note:

“All scientific knowledge is in a state of flux, for at any time new evidence could be presented that contradicts a long-held hypothesis.”

Professional scientists are very interested when evidence contradicts their theories, they do not dismiss the new evidence out of hand.

You do understand that the life form does not “change form” don’t you? It’s the life form’s offspring which are different from the parent. Over very large numbers of generations a species can change radically. Mankind has repeated this experiment many times, with both domestic animals (think of all the different breeds of dogs) and plants (for example, fruits selected for flavour).

No, this is exactly the sort of beneficial mutation evolutionary theory predicts would be passed on to sucessive generations.

NoLies, if you have any real evidence to support creationism I’d be interested to hear it. I have no emotional investment in believing evolution is true, but honesty compels me to say it is by far the best explanation I have heard.

Please could you answer this question. Why do you think so many Christians, and Christian scientists, believe evolutionary theory to be correct?

255

Thisa is simply a lie. The overwhelming majority of Christians do not believe in predestination. Your knowledge of theology and religious history appears to be as tenuous (or invented) as your “knowledge” of science.

Sad, really.

256

Oh, you mean the guy who is “Moving the World to the Right?” The guy with the abortion clock? This “cite’” if you care to call it that, is appalling biased, especially since I gave you a cite to MIT. Devolab what Avida is based out of, is also housed at MSU - an institute of higher learning. A reputable source.

Let me also be one to chime in against your recent offensiveness. Although an agnostic, I am bothered that you would judge fellow people, especially fellow Christians, in such a condscending attitude that you have recently portrayed. That isn’t even Christian.

257

Many of us find evolution coherent.

Well, thse guys have run some intereseting experiments with micro-orgaisms, which (given that we are not immortal) is about as elaborate as such things are likely to get. And given the complexity of life, I’d be geniunely surprised if someone could run 10,000 generations of microbes and get exactly the same result as a predecessor.

That is pretty neat, actually. Can you find out the name of this enzyme? I’d like to read more about it. And, no, it’s not contrary to the evolutionary model with these easy-to-grasp suggestions:
[ul][li]The enzyme isn’t perfect and some genetic anomalies, including some very serious birth defects, get past it. Further, mutation-caused cancers (as after exposure to radioaton) also occur. The enzyme, if you’re remembering its function correctly, is at times pretty lazy.[/li][li]The enzyme, when it works, helps prevent genetic damage that may prevent an organism from reaching maturity. Keeping an organism alive long enough to reproduce is perfectly in line with the evolutionary model.[/ul][/li]By the way, I do have a life. It turns out that addressing your arguments doesn’t really eat up all that much of it.

258

Right you are. I might also point out that we are or will soon be doing intelligent design - not on ourselves, but on plants and animals. If we vanish, someone coming along later and finding species with genes from other species mixed in might wonder what happened. ID is not nonsense in the same way creationism is, but like panspermia there is no evidence for it, so no reason to believe it happened.

I find it amusing that Raelians are firm believers in ID, but with aliens as the designer. Especially since Behe accepts many things that are anethemas to YECs, their using the term must mean that they are grasping for the slightest bit of scientific cover.

The biggest fallacy of the time and chance argument is that it presupposes that we were meant to be here. You might as well posit an intelligent designer that selected the right sperm ensuring that you, I, or nolies was born instead of someone different.

259

I guess you’ve never been to a museum of natural history. And there are literally mountains of evidence - mountains and canyons containing the fossil record, which when read by people not blinded by the interpretation of the Bible, support evolution.

The Bible was written by man. Who put the fossils into those mountains? The creator, right? So, you are denying the direct word of God in favor of the word of man. You are calling God a liar. tsk tsk. I only hope the section of hell I wind up in is far away from the one you end up in. :slight_smile:

And by the way, as an atheist I’d like to thank you for your posts. Now, if there only weren’t pesky people like Polycarp around acting the way their Savior says to act, our job would be real easy.

260

[QUOTE=Nolies]
The Darwinian observation of finches doesn’t take into account the number of possibilities of colors and beak shape already inherent in the genes of just two finches. /QUOTE]

The finches of the various types do not interbreed which makes them different species according to the concept of species that is commonly used. In addition, it raised questions in Darwin’s mind about one original creation of all birds. Were these finches created especially adapted to particular environmental niches in the Galapagos Islands and then just left hanging until the flood when they would somehow navigate from the vicinity of Eden to their assigned place?

And I’m not sure that you or I know whether all the different characteristics were originally inherent in the genes or whether some arose by some mutation.