There is no proof of evolution

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Nitpik: I before E except after C and E before N in “chicken.”

…the “scientists” that pulled these timelines out of the hat have used circular reasoning and bait and switch scams to “prove” their findings. Don’t they date the fossils by the layer in which they are found, and the layer by the types of fossils found there. Can’t they see the errors inherent in the dating methods that can give them any conclusion their theory requires. I guess they will keep getting better at pulling the wool over they eyes of the ignorant masses, just like the proponents of churchly theology.
[/QUOTE]

Now, saying this stuff once might just be simple ignorance, but when you’re told, repeatedly, that what you’re saying is flatly untrue, and you don’t even bother to come up with any new version of the argument to refute this, you just keep on repeating the same line–I come to the conclusion that you’re lying.

Why are you lying about geology, srmclauren? It seems an odd thing to lie about. Are you afraid of something? I think maybe your faith isn’t as strong as you proclaim it to be. I think you know, deep down, that your “Rock” is nothing but sand, and that the real rocks say that your beliefs about the origin of the world, far from being the Inerrant Word of of the “Rock of Ages”, are just the idle speculations of Bronze Age goat-herds.

Since deep down you already know this, it doesn’t make sense that it’s eternal hellfire you’re afraid of. Maybe it’s your own sinful nature–you think if you admit your “Rock” is sand–quicksand at that–maybe you’ll run amuck and start stealing and raping and murdering. I want to reassure you, millions of atheists live normal, happy, productive, law-abiding, moral, lives. After you admit that what you are professing so hard is the nonsense which deep down you already know it to be, I think you’ll be a much happier and even better person.

At the very least, you won’t have to keep lying about geology.

162

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Six million imaginary years keeps you free from scrutiny if you want to speculate on the descent of man. You just can’t compare that with the development of languages.
[/QUOTE]

Sure you can. Language is actually one of the better analogies for understanding evolution.

Have you discovered an explanation for retroviral genes yet?

163

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Some things are not subject to the type of evolutionary change languages have undergone. We are again talking about different kinds of evolution. The gradual changes in a language could be compared to micro-evolution or interbreeding between similar species, but not to a change from an ape to a human.

It’s that last small difference, where the genetic similarity ends, that sets us apart as a totally different species, with only other humans as ancestors.
[/QUOTE]

What “last bit” are you refering to? Each mutation is a singular event. Over time, populations that have been separated accumulate these singular events and eventually they add up to a genetic incompatibility. What is the barrier you see in turning the ancestral chimp/human ancestor into a human? There are many evolutionary lineages (like the evolution of whales) that show a much more radical change in overall body plan than that from a quadrupedal ape to an upright human.

Language is, of course, not a perfect analogy. Nothing ever is a perfect analogy. But the process by which lnaguages change over time is very similar to the process by which a population’s gene pool changes over time.

164

[QUOTE=pragmatic55]
Once science revealed carniverous animals existesed before man, the world of churchly theology was thrown into bedlam.
[/QUOTE]
Not hardly. There is, in fact, exactly one strain of Christianity and a similar strain in Judaism and Islam that resists accepting the scientific reports. The majority of religious believers were never “thrown into bedlam” by that information. One may criticize the ways in which the new information was incorporated in the religious beliefs, but to claim that “theology was thrown into bedlam” is arrant anti-historical nonsense.

For those who are following at home, but do not want to track down MEBuckner’s links, here is a quick synopsis of srmclauren’s geology error:

It would seem that you are using a bait and switch manner of supporting ignorance to make this claim.

The reality is that fossils were used to establish the relative order of various layers of rock. It was discovered that trilobites were always found in the same sort of rock and that they were found in rock that was on a lower level than dinosuars and dinosuars were always found in a lower level than large mammals. This (divided more finely according to actual animals than “trilobites” or “dinosaurs”) allowed scientists to categorize the levels and the relative chronology of different types of animals. Eventually, the various layers were categorized by names. This is scientific. It can be falsified and tested. One does not find trilobites in the same rocks as stegosaurs and one does not find a stegosaurus in the same rocks as a Paraceratherium. Further, the rocks in which we would find a trilobite are on lower strata than the rocks in which we would find a stegosaurus that are on a lower level than the rocks in which we would find a Paraceratherium. We do not find trilobites in the higher strata.

In this way, scientists established an order that could be used. If a rock was discovered bearing a trilobite, before the paleontologist dug up all the surrounding layers of rock, he or she could know that the rock was roughly the same age as any other rock bearing a trilobite.

Rocks are dated, (rather than set in order) by radiometric dating, using known decay rates of different radioactive isotopes. (Frequently, some ill-informed Creationist will make a big deal over the fact that Carbon-14 dating can’t go back millions of years. The appropriate response to that is “So what?” No scientist uses Carbon-14 dating to go back 55,000 years or more. There are other isotopes, (e.g., argon), that can provide information going back millions of years and those are the ones that are used. A Creationist who declares that “carbon dating won’t work” is either ignorantly or dishonestly confusing specific Carbon-14 dating with the more general radiometric dating.)

Further, as several posters have noted, srmclauren’s one-line jabs are all directed at a strawman: there is no conflict between belief (even belief in the particular version of God expressed by Christianity) and a recognition of the accuracy of the Theory of Evolution and all the evidence supporting it.

So his arguments are dishonest and his overall attack is dishonest, and I think that a God who explicitly prohibited bearing false witness just might not look favorably on such dishonesty.

165

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Just as Mendel’s law was proved subsequently to be subject to many limitations, so will all the collective human wisdom amassed by scientists who deny the existance of a Creator. So I’m sure you are wasting your time chasing after shifting allelic frequencies. Keep fighting. ( And try not to respond too violently to natural selection pressures.)
[/QUOTE]

Well, until that happens do you plan to boycott all the benefits of science? That would be the honourable thing, wouldn’t it?

166

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
I feel like I’ve been fighting with chimps, and it’s gone far enough.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed it has. Personal insults are not permitted in this Forum and, while this was vague enough to be “defended” that is was not a direct personal insult, it demonstrates a pattern of your behavior that seems more interested in insult than in discussion.

You will back off this sort of behavior, or you will no longer post here.

[ /Moderating ]

167

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Not hardly. There is, in fact, exactly one strain of Christianity and a similar strain in Judaism and Islam that resists accepting the scientific reports. The majority of religious believers were never “thrown into bedlam” by that information. One may criticize the ways in which the new information was incorporated in the religious beliefs, but to claim that “theology was thrown into bedlam” is arrant anti-historical nonsense.
[/QUOTE]

I question your intent to ‘question’ my remark.

The doctrine of original sin is a christian doctrine, it was in essence, created and largely mastered by Saint Augustine of Hippo.

This doctrine entails sin entering through Adam once he ‘fell’ or ate the apple from the tree, this fable entailed the snack telling Adam that he would be “like the divine” and he only ate the apple because woman ate the apple. She deceived but it was not her fault, as she wasn’t yet created when God told Adam about the evil tree.

In order for Original Sin to stand, the eating of animals and the lust from sex must not have pre-existed before Adam. Thus early theologians believed they did not exist.

To find out that in fact they did exist, this according to evolution, would certainly cause an uproar to the uneducated pious Christians.

This is not disputable as you claim to make it, it seems to me an attempt to downplay the absurdities of a fable like doctrine intended to establish meaning for the universe around us. Original Sin and Adam and Eve is by no means a biological theory, thus to call into question my statement of ‘bedlam’ is to ignore the absurdities of Christian history.

168

[QUOTE=pragmatic55]
To find out that in fact they did exist, this according to evolution, would certainly cause an uproar to the uneducated pious Christians.
[/QUOTE]
Certainly, it could cause such an uproar. In fact, among a fairly small number of Christians located in North America in the 19th century (and their theological descendants) it did cause an uproar.

However, your claim was not that it bothered some number of Christians, but that it disrupted the whole applecart. Whatever might have happened, (or, in your opinion, should have happened), historically, outside the group that took on the label of Fundamentalism, no such disruption actually occurred. The Catholic Church had accepted the possibility that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (with all the leading evidence and subsequent conclusions) was a probably valid scientific description of a real event prior to 1900 (among some scholars, as early as 1878). No pope has ever condemned that science. There has been no great outcry from among the Anglican communion regarding the probability that the story of Eden and The Fall is Myth (in the anthropological sense). The Evangelische and Lutheran groups (aside from the North American Missouri and Wisconsin Synods who aligned themselves with their Fundamentalist neighbors) has not had any serious disruption of their beliefs. (Among the foremost scholars re-examining the story of The Fall as Myth have been a large number of Evangelische theologians.) Periodically, I encounter a person with an Orthodox heritage who seems reluctant to accept the Theory of Evolution (and its corollaries), but the great architect of neo-Darwinism, Theodosius Dobzhansky, was, himself, an Orthodox Christian.

It would appear that some aspect of your system of belief requires the people to have been horrified at this new scientific revelation, while the reality is that the overwhelming majority of those people have considered the situation and incorporated it into their lives with a minimum of disruption.
Thus my point that you have attempted to make a claim (based on what you wish to have happened) that simply never occurred, based on the actual history of events. It is almost as though you are resisting evidence, based on your faith in your beliefs about religious persons.

169

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Some things are not subject to the type of evolutionary change languages have undergone. We are again talking about different kinds of evolution. The gradual changes in a language could be compared to micro-evolution or interbreeding between similar species, but not to a change from an ape to a human.

It’s that last small difference, where the genetic similarity ends, that sets us apart as a totally different species, with only other humans as ancestors.
[/QUOTE]

So now you draw a distinction between “similar species” and “totally different species”.

Given two species, how do you determine whether they are “similar” or “totally different”? How different do they have to be to be considered “totally different”? What points of similarity allow them to be considered “similar”?

170

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Forgive me, but there are some rare ones in the special field of evolution
[/QUOTE]

What does this have to do with what Lissa wrote? In fact, what does this sentence even mean?

171

interest and srmclauren, what would it take to convince you of evolution? If the answer is “nothing,” that’s fine but it would be polite to let the board know, so people can decide if it’s worth their time to engage with you.

172

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Maybe it would be clearer if I said “the” Creator, or maybe not.

You do well to believe that there is one God: the devils also believe, and tremble.
James 2:19

What kind of god do they believe in?

Thump! Oops, there I go again. Can’t seem to stop. Keep fighting.
[/QUOTE]

Do you believe God created the Earth?

If so, God created all the fossils in the rocks. These fossils tell a very clear story about evolution, one that is consistent.
This story is in direct contradiction to what is in Genesis, a book, I might remind yo, written by men, whereas the fossils were placed by God. If you believe in the book, but doubt the direct word of God, you are doubting God, and placing man above God. I suspect God would not be very happy with you about this. Scientists who believe in God, and accept evolution, believe in God’s word more than man’s, and are thus more god-fearing than you are.

I politely suggest you had better start believing in God’s word, not man’s, or you had better start hoping that we atheists are correct, since otherwise you might not end up where you think you will.
Better think about it.

173

[QUOTE=srmclauren]

Languages seem to have been designed by men for the purpose of communication. (I hope I can remain logical here.) The romance languages have all been influenced by the language spoken in the Roman Empire. They are all still languages. They are not vegetable gardens or airplanes. Those were designed for a completely different purpose. Latin, I am guessing, had to be learned to a degree in order to get along with the occupation forces, tax collectors, etc. Ergo, some of it got incorporated into the indigenous speech of the regions as the local tribes adapted to the change. English uses a lot as well, and even German didn’t escape. We can document the transitions. Six million imaginary years keeps you free from scrutiny if you want to speculate on the descent of man. You just can’t compare that with the development of languages.
[/QUOTE]

And animals are animals, not rocks. Who designed languages, again? Can you point me to the person who designed English? (I’d like to have a few words with him about spelling.) Languages collect characteristics from more than one parent, and collect words from other languages in the way animals don’t. But just as two species can’t have offspring, those who know two different languages can’t communicate - and the French can’t understand the Italians by a set of small changes to Latin over time.

174

[QUOTE=srmclauren]
Careful lest you be hoisted by your own petard. (Don’t worry, I’m not strong enough. I’m sure it’s much too heavy and natural selection has left me in the dust.)
[/QUOTE]

A petard was a type of bomb used in medieval warfare to breach walls and gates during a siege. To be “hoist” by one means to be blown into the air by an explosion. No heavy lifting required.

175

[QUOTE=Miller]
A petard was a type of bomb used in medieval warfare to breach walls and gates during a siege. To be “hoist” by one means to be blown into the air by an explosion. No heavy lifting required.
[/QUOTE]

Now that’s not fair! You shouldn’t require or expect srmclauren to know what the words s/he uses means; that would require reading comprehension skills clearly not present.

176

[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
Now that’s not fair! You shouldn’t require or expect srmclauren to know what the words s/he uses means; that would require reading comprehension skills clearly not present.
[/QUOTE]

Eh. It’s a common mistake. I used to think it was a kind of polearm, myself.

177

I used to think it was some kind of article of clothing, like a “bootstrap.”

178

[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
that would require reading comprehension skills clearly not present.
[/QUOTE]
Leave the personal insults in the Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

179

From the hoist part of it, I assumed it was a flag.

180

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
From the hoist part of it, I assumed it was a flag.
[/QUOTE]
A petard flag? That would be fly!