jayjay,
No I don’t, all I have to do is show that science doesn’t support the theroy of evolution unless you twist it and ignore basic laws of physics, statistics, biology. The point is which model does science show to be more consistant with our scientific data.
God did it, or chance + time did it.
Hang it, I was seconding jayjay, although tomndebb makes some very good points, too.
In order for me to discard evolution, you must give me something else to replace it with and that something else must be able to withstand as rigorous a test of logic and reason.
CJ
And you prove here with your first sentence that you have absolutely no idea how science works. Even if you did manage to disprove evolutionary theory (and that’s a huge “if”…you haven’t even started on the dot of the “i” yet…), you can’t simply prop up Creationism in its place. That’s not science. Creationism is unfalsifiable. As a unique event, you cannot make predictions based on it. There’s no way to disprove it…every time we hit something that’s unexplainable, you can simply scream “Goddidit!” and squeeze around the roadblock. That’s not science. That’s not science. That’s not science.
Do you need it repeated again? How many more times? Because time and repetition will not change it to a message more to your liking.
Then why isn’t if fact of Natural selection?
The law of conservation (which is what your are really talking about) that has the weaker mutated genes die so that the stronger survive has nothing to do with some sort of observed phenomenon in which one life form changes into another. Can you show me the evidence for this? since you say is is observed? who observed it when?
pure theoretical BS
“They have changed because we want to believe that they have changed form one form to the other yet the later is still here.”
this is why a moderated debate would be so nice…
Give it up, CJ. Since your belief in evolution condemns you already you can do anything you want. Marry another woman, steal, murder; it doesn’t matter anymore because you’re going to Hell anyway! 
And what do you evolutionist say when you hit a road block the counters the theory. Well just because we don’t have an answer for it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Just trust us…
That is not science That’s not science That’s not science
And evolution is also unprovable according to scentific definition.
So all we have is which bits of evidence fit better into which model?..
(sigh) NoLies, didn’t your mama tell you that if you don’t know what you are talking about you should keep your mouth shut? Please, for your sake, learn what the bloody term means before you shoot your mouth off!
I’m beginning to think you have no idea how a “moderated debate” works, either. You have seen too many political debates and imagine it means that the two candidates take turns spouting their talking points and ignoring the possibility that they may be wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
‘Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.’
'In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” ’
Nolies, if it hasn’t become clear to you yet, you are (a) working with an entirely different vocabulary than those disagreeing with you – and it would be worth your while to get on the same page; (b) setting up red herrings galore, as in your “time + chance” and your misinterpretation of abiogenesis as having anything to do with evolution; and © (evidently) presuming that it’s a battle between the Godly and the doubters.
And it’s not your prerogative to decide what the terms of the debate ought to be. The proposition for a “moderated debate” (by which I presume you mean a formal debate; the present debates are “moderated” in that moderators observe them to ensure that members remain within the rules of the board) is something that has never happened here. And by longstanding custom, the person advocating a position in an initial post is obliged to defend his position, not to decide that the proposition to be defended is the one he opposes.
For a starter, answer these questions:
What does the term “theory” mean in connection with the scientific method?
In what way is “Scientific Creationism” amenable to the scientific method?
What precise objections do you have to modern evolutionary theory, not as a YEC Christian, but as an analytical observer?
Do you accept that a Christian can accept evolutionary theory?
Not at all. These are two completely different issues. Evolution is about how life forms change over time, and has nothing to do wth how life appeared at the first place.
You can have god creating the first living structure or it coming from outer space (panspermia hypothesis) or it forming from inert material, and it wouldn’t change nothing regarding the theory of evolution.
And as previously mentionned concerning abiogenesis, “we dont know” is a perfectly valid answer. Much more so than “I’m going to make up some arbitrary explanation”.
Oh, yeeesh! I went ahead and read the abiogenesis link (against my better judgement) and what have I found? The same old dishonest application of Pasteur’s work.
Pasteur demonstrated that the same critters that were causing various foods to spoil were not generating spontaneously. In the older belief that he knocked down, the same critters were “spontaneously” generating over and over again to wreak havoc on crops, meat, wine, and milk. He demonstrated, first, that they were the same kinds of critters in each situation and second, that they were moving and breeding from one generation to the next rather than simply winking into existence.
He did not “prove” that abiogenesis could not occur. He demonstrated that in the food industries for which he was working, abiogenesis was not the agent that was actually operating.
The various hypotheses that are now under consideration regarding abiogenesis do not make a claim for spontaneous generation, either. They generally look at how know chemical actions might have become self replicating. Such actions are not “spontaneous generation” but simply a chemical process. A process that is not yet fully understood, but which no one claims is spontaneous.
More Creationist lies.
Why? Because having one person pointing out your ignorance is easier to take than having ten people do it?
Incidentally, if you won’t take on andros in a formal debate, I’ll gladly face you myself. Like him, though, I’m not a trained biologist, my education is in business (Bachelor of commerce) and my profession is in computers (well, technical electronics generally).
I’m confident that:
[ul][li]You’ll score no points that disprove evolution[/li][li]You’ll score no points that support creationism[/li][*]Nothing I say will make any difference to you[/ul]
I must disagree with that, though I don’t think you really meant it. To discard evolution, you just have to somehow prove it false. Offering an alternate theory would be nice, but isn’t required. We would just fall again in the “we don’t know” realm.
I have a question for you NoLies. Do you believe that to be a true Christian you must interpret the bible literally?
Then you haven’t been reading.
I think you need to amend that to “…according to Creation science…” There is nowhere in the physical sciences any principle that prevents it from happening.
From your link:
First of all, your “missing links” are a matter of definition. DNA between different species, families, and even phylum shows astonishing similiarity, particularly in those “nonfunctional” pseudogenes, to the point that it is upon the position that they are not interrelated to present an argument.
If you want to be egregiously pedantic, any missing generation is a missing link. If you aren’t willing to accept the similarity of genotypes between myself and my four grandparents as a demonstration of our shared linage without having to inspect my parents for the same genes then there would be a missing link in my family (my parents).
How exactly do you explain the confluence of genes between, say, a p. trogodytes (chimpanzee) and a h. sapiens? Or a horse and a donkey? And please, no unfounded speculation (no mention in the Bible or any other religious text) on God using the genetic blueprint for one to create the other.
A mutation need only to provide a marginal benefit, or even just of no detriment, to be passed onto another generation and another, and another. Imagine a gene that offers some measure of resistance to malaria; the growth of marginal improvements becomes greater if it survives even a few generations, similar to the manner in which compound interest can increase a penny to a million dollars over a timespan.
Um…yeah, I can use statistical methods to tease out patterns that you dismiss with a metaphorical wave of the hand. Certainly, people can lie with numbers carefully garnered from a study to present a result that is unwarrented, particularly when addressing an audience which is unversed with the math and assumptions behind it. But that doesn’t mean that the entire field of statistical analysis and games theory, which you so carelessly dismiss, is a complete load of bunk, any more than a screwdriver is useless because you can’t use it to pound nails.
What astounds people here (or, at least me, and I’m pretty sure that this is true of others) is that you are willing to completely dismiss a theory which is backed by centuries of observation and correlation in favor of an explaination built upon slight inconsistancies, irrelevancies, gaps in knowledge, and upon strict interpretation of a belief of which even most of its’ followers argue is not to be taken literally. Furthermore, your arguments have had no coherent basis; first you argue against evolution, then you make the claim that your god used chimp DNA as the basis for human DNA (which seems to be in clear contradiction to a YEC/strict literalist interpretation of Genesis), then you want to argue about abiogenesis, which is an ancillary issue to evolution (although an important one in its own right). You try to argue against radiological dating by throwing in an irrelevency that you clearly don’t understand, and without a shred of evidence you make the infamous “Grand Canyon was formed in the Flood” claim which stands in contradiction to everything geologists and geophysicists have learned about the earth. You invoke “science” as a disproof of, well, evolutionary science, without making any specific claims backed up by evidence, experiement, or accepted theory. And finally, you throw in a “big bang” comment, as if cosmology has anything whatsoever to do with the evolution.
Your defense is to present an argument that is so scattershot that anyone trying to debate you has to zip from one misapprehension to another, trying to correct your mistakes in theory and your misperceptions of data before they can even begin to address your current (and confusing) position…which is general a non sequitor to the position you held in the previous post.
sigh Ah, it takes me back. It’s just like policy debate, only without citations to fictional editions of Black’s Law Dictionary. :rolleyes:
Stranger
Clearly you’ve never been in a military tech shop.
I haven’t heard you define life either.
Umm, you might want to look up what Big Bang means. Unless you are redefining it as some sort of prehistoric sex orgy, of course. Bringing up the Big Bang in this context shows you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
I sure hope you didn’t get above a D in that class, since you don’t seem to understand statistics either.
Are you under the impression that an advantageous mutation must spread to the entire population in one generation? Are you under the impression that every beneficial mutation propagates? Wrong on both counts. If it lasts the first few generations (and an advantage is no guarantee that the bearers of the gene will successfully reproduce) it will spread a bit faster than other genes, and will eventually spread through the population. There have been a number of simulations of this, and I think some theory, though I’m sure it involves some statistics so you won’t believe in it. A mutation is the change of one gene. How is it not going to be passed on exactly?
Of course there can be mutations that are neutral when expressed, and become beneficial later when the environment changes. These will be spread through some of the population, not all, and will provide the carriers of the gene a selective advantage at this later point.
BTW, I trust that you have not gone to talkorigins.org yet. It might be a good idea.
So, what creationist myth are you going to spout next? You’ve kind of touched on the 2LOT one. I’m just waiting for the how can we evolve from apes when there are still apes around one, and the “show me a cat turning into a dog” one.
Okay, you can do it…but you’re going to end up with the kind of stuff you get out of a military repair shop.
“Hey Sarge! Why’s this lever bent over? And how come the breech on this gun is welded shut?”
“Private Dipstick, do you want to eat my dirty sock for breakfast?!? Then shut your pie-hole and get back to polishing the that commode!”
“Sir, yes sir!”
Remember: your weapon was built by the lowest bidder, and then sent oversees to be fabricated by the country whose forces you are shortly to be fighting. Good luck, doughboy.
Stranger
I have a proposition for nolies: I’ll read any book of your choosing (that can be found in the library or otherwise obtained without cost) if you’ll do me the complementary favor.
Lessee…How about you start with Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker or if you want something with more pictures and less programming, Stephen J. Gould’s The Book of Life: An Illustrated History of the Evolution of Life on Earth. Read, take notes on what you find incorrect and improbable. Recommend something that boasts your point of view, and I’ll do the same.
Fair?
Stranger
Wrong. Evolution via natural selection does not hinge on single, lucky individuals - it is a population-level phenomenon which operates on averages. In any population, the traits possesed thereby will vary around a mean. Some individuals may be faster, some may be slower. Some may have slightly brighter colors, some duller. Some may be slightly more intelligent, some…duller. Some may have slightly stronger beaks, some weaker. And so on. In a given environment, the variations in those traits will either make on better able to procure resources, not so able, or will have no effect one way or the other. If it is the case that the statistically faster, smarter, brighter, stronger (just to pick one variational direction; the same concept could be apply equally the other way, depending on the environment) are better able to procure resources (including mates), then assuming those variations are heritable, those traits will be more likely than the average to be passed on to the next generation. The mean for that trait then changes, and variation about the new mean occurs. And so on. Such is the mechanism of adaptation.
The process does not rely on a single, beneficial mutation, it relies on shifting averages about a mean of variation.
Define “life form”.
Better yet, let’s just deal with a population. It can be cats, rats, widgets, or anything else you like. At any given starting time, t=0, that population is represented by form A. The next generation is represented by form B. B is not substantially different from A, just slightly. The next generation results in form C, which is, again, only slightly different from B. And so on. By the time we get to generation Z, the population is only marginally different fom Y, but the difference between Z and A might be more significant. Extend the progression out further, and Z[sub]2[/sub] differs from A even moreso.
Now, suppose somewhere along the way, population H is split in twain, forming H and H’. H’ has no contact with H, so the two gene pools do not intermingle. Over tme, as the two populations continue on their merry way, H slowly become Z, while H’ slowly become Z’. Because there is no genetic interplay between H and H’, the two lineages will vary independently resulting in Z’ being not only different from H’, and therefore from A, but also different from Z. One initial population has resulted in two divergent forms
And you want real-world examples? Here ya go.